1. In India, the earliest case in which issue of admissibility of tape-recorded conversation came for consideration is Rupchand v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1956 Punjab 173. The court in this case though declined to treat tape-recorded conversation as writing within the meaning of section 3 (65) of the General Clauses Act but allowed the same to be used under section 155(3) of the Evidence Act as previous statement to shake the credit of witness.
2. In the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, following conditions were pointed out by the Apex Court for admissibility of tape recorded conversation:
a) the voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
b) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
c) Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.
3. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788, the Apex Court considered the value and use of such transcriptts and expressed the view that transcriptt could be used to show what the transcriber has found recorded there at the time of transcripttion and the evidence of the makers of the transcriptts is certainly corroborative because it goes to confirm what the tape record contained.
4. The question regarding evidence of the tape-recorded information, is about utility and evidentiary value. In this respect following points require consideration:
a) Whether such evidence is primary or secondary?
b) Whether such evidence is direct or hearsay?
c) Whether such evidence is corroborative or substantive?
Hope above satisfies the raised issues !
BTW out of curiosity I am wondering in S.125 CrPC what is use of aboce method you have plans to put into pleadings ?
:-)
Rgds,
