Criminal appeal no-358/2013
Delhi High Court
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Ohri J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04-05-20
BRANCH OF FORENSIC SCIENCE: Voice Analysis (Forensic Physics)
RELEVANT SECTIONS/ACTS:
The Prevention of Corruption act, 1988
- Section 7- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
- Section 13 (1) (d) – Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
BACK STORY
Briefly stating to the fact of the case, the F.I.R lodged by Mr. Ajit Singh Yadav (informant,(PW-1) with F.I.R no RC-DAI-2006-A-0021. In this case, the Sita Ram (Accused), who was executive engineer i.e. public servant in the CD-IV, CPWD Pusa, New Delhi had demanded the bribe of 2% (approx. Rs.7,000-/-) from the complainant for the newly released tender for construction of shed and accused also threatens him to cancel the tender if he didn’t pay the bribe.
Then the investigation proceeds by the team of CBI officers and 2 IW (independent witnesses) from NCCF, Nehru place, and the complainant introduced to all the team officers with a plan to conduct the raid at the accused officer to caught him red-handed
After that phenolphthalein powder applied to all GC notes and the notes no noted down also the digital recorder and KCR-30 with IDK-D-60 was handed over to the Ajit Singh (Complainant) to record and overhear the conversation between the accused and the complainant and the accused. Then according to the plan, Ajit Singh reached the office chamber at about 12:25 hours and Ram Swaroop (IW-1) stood outside the office. Then the shadow witness gave the signal and then the CID team rushed inside and caught the accused with the counted same bribe notes and accused all the belongings like towel, pant, his fingers dipped in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turns pink as he touches the phenolphthalein powder GC notes and thus showing the involvement of him in this crime and therefore he admitted his acceptance of demanding the bribe.
VOICE IDENTIFICATION REPORT
The prosecution in support of his case examined total 15 witnesses (PW Nos. 1-15), and the voice recording analysis report with respect to the Cassettes and transcription done by Dr. Tanwar, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL (PW-2) and thus report was form given to form an expert opinion. The report tells that the accused voice sample and the recorded sample have the same pitch and graph showing the matching of voice with the accused.
JUDGMENT
Due to lack of presenting the primary evidence in the court with the appropriate witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove their case against the appellant and resultantly court dismissed all the charges and punishment filed against the accused by the District court Delhi in CC No. 20/08 in RC 21(A)/06 whereby the appellant convicted for the offense punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, and the appellant set aside and his bails and surety bonds discharged.
This case shows that voice identification (secondary evidence) alone cannot prove the innocence or guilt of any person if the primary evidence (towel, notes, labeled glass bottles of dipped fingers of accused) not correctly interpreted with the proper witnesses.