FACTS- in this case, the accused (appellant) asking for illegal gratification from the doctor who operated on the patient and such a patient died after the operation. Accused allowed to disposal. Accused allowed the disposal of the body despite the request made by the police station for the inquest of the body. Dr A complained about the accused in the anti-corruption branch. The police recorded the conversation between the accused, Dr A and Dr M by attaching a tape recorder in the telephone of Dr M who is negotiating with the accused on behalf of Dr A in the presence of police.

ISSUE- whether the tape recording is admissible as evidence?

OBSERVATION- the court observed three requirements for evidence given by tape recording, which are:

  1. Tape recorded conversion is in relation to matter in issue.
  2. The voice must be identified.
  3. Tape recorded is genuine and free from temperation.

Tape recorded as evidence is admissible under section 7 and section 8 of the evidence act.

The court mentioned that tape-recorded becomes the primary and direct evidence of what has been said and recorded. It’s just like a photograph taken without the knowledge of a person photograph can become admissible.

The evidence is liable to be viewed with care and caution by the judge. The position of the accused, gravity of the offence must be judged by keeping the material facts and circumstances in mind.

The admissibility of evidence procured in consequence of illegal means and other unlawful acts is accepted in English law. The method of the informer and of the eavesdropper is commonly used in the detection of crime. The only difference here was that a mechanical device was the eavesdropper.

The judicial committee in kwruma vs R,1955 held that the evidence procured by illegal means must be relevant and admissible it doesn’t matter how it was obtained. The judge can disallow the evidence if it causing prejudice to the accused.

DECISION- the court held that the tape recording is admissible in evidence. It is not in contravention of section 25 of the telegraph act because Dr M himself allowed the police to record his telephonic conversation. Tape recorded doesn’t violate Article 20(3) because when the tape-recorded there is no case against the accused, he himself made the voluntary confession no one compelled him to do so. Article 21 was invoked by the accused that his privacy was invaded. The court said that the protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption by public servants

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?