Dear Vidu,
In the below cases :
Yusuf Ali v. State of Maharashtra − AIR 1968 SC 147
N. Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri − AIR 1971 SC 1162
R.M. Malkhani v. State of Maharashtra − AIR 1973 SC 1571
Z.B. Bhukhari v. B.R. Mehra − AIR 1975 SC 1788
Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 611
it is observed as:
Tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act., the Apex Court has held that tape recorder conversation is an admissible piece of evidence provided the voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know the same and the accuracy of what has been recorded is proved by the maker of the record so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record and also that the subject matter recorded is relevant according to the rules of relevancy under the Evidence Act.
R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court on 29 July, 2009
In the above case it is observed as :
72. In regard to the admissibility in evidence of tape recorded statements Mr. Ahmed cited a number of decisions of this Court in (i) N. Shri Rama Reddy vs. V. Giri (1970) 2 SCC 340 (ii) R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471 (iii) Mahabir Prasad Verma vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur (1982) 2 SCC 258 and (iv) Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Suppl SCC 611. He also referred to two foreign decisions on the point, one in (i) R vs. Stevenson, 1971 (1) All ER 678, and the other of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division of the State of New York in The People of State of New York vs. Francis Bell (taken down from the internet). We need here refer to the last among the decisions of this Court and the English decisions in R vs. Stevenson. In Ram Singh, a case arising from an election trial the Court examined the question of admissibility of tape recorded conversations under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court lay down that a tape recorded statement would be admissible in evidence subject to the following conditions;
Thus, so far as this Court is concerned the conditions for admissibility of a tape− recorded statement may be stated as follows:
(1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by other who recognize his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that in the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
(3) Every possibility of tampering 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.
(4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act. (5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in a safe or official custody.
(6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.
