Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2009, 740 & 741 Of 2009
High Court of Judicature of Bombay
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. P.V. Hardas J., Hon’ble Mrs. Prabhudessai J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14-10-2014
BRANCH OF FORENSIC SCIENCE: Voice analysis (Forensic Physics)
RELEVANT SECTIONS/ACTS:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Act, 1860
- Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 364(A) – Kidnapping for ransom, etc.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 313 – Power to examine the accused.
The Arms Act, 1959
- Section 3 – Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition, or other arms illegally.
- Section 24 – Seizure and detention under orders of the Central Government.
- Section 25 – Punishment for certain offences
BACK STORY
Briefly stating to the fact of the case, On 29.09.2005 the F.I.R. lodged by the Dilip Sangvi (victim’s father; PW-1) to police inspector Satish Deore (PW-14 )under C.R. No.377 of 2005 at Pimpri Police Station indicating that his son Punit (victim) found missing from the date 29.09.2005 when he received a missed call on his mobile No.9822432337 of Rs.20 lakhs from the unknown STD by the Mahendra Singh (A-1) and Kuldip (A-2).
Punit Sanghvi (victim) and Accused no.1 were studying in Godavari High School, Chinchwad. On 29.09.2005, Accused no.1 requested the victim to come to his house to teach him accountancy where Madan Singh took Punit to the room of the co-accused Manoj Kumar (A-3) and Mahendra Singh, a juvenile and they dragged Punit into the room while the co-accused Manoj Kumar (A-4) and Mahendra Singh had revolver and knife in their hands and threatened to kill him and told him that then kidnapped him for ransom and asked him to give the mobile number of his father for making a call for the ransom of Rs20 Lakhs and thereafter they covered his face with tape and kept victim confined in the room, till 03.10.2005. After that, on 03.10.2005, the brother of Madan Singh rescued the victim and dropped him near his house.
Then the PW-1 had recorded the conversation of the kidnappers and had handed over the said audio cassette to the Investigating Officer, which seized under panchnama at Exh.130. .Satish Deore (PW-14), recorded the statement of the victim Punit (PW-2) and arrested the accused. Upon investigation the accused made disclosure statements, which led to the recovery of the revolver, knife, and cookery. The police obtained the voice samples of the accused and sent them for the voice analysis.
MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT
Satish Deore (PW-14) had referred the victim to the hospital where he examined by Dr. Arvind Patil and the medical report revealed that there was a linear abrasion over the right lateral aspect of the neck at the level of the thyroid cartilage, which was 2.5 cms. in length. The doctor had opined that the age of said injury was of 4 to 5 days duration and could have been caused either by knife or cookery. The victim had claimed that during his captivity from 29th September 2005 to 03.10.2005 he tied by a rope and his entire face covered with tape but (PW-11) deposed that he did not find any such weal marks which found when someone tied with rope on the neck and the medical evidence, therefore, does not support the prosecution case.
VOICE IDENTIFICATION REPORT
PW-1 has had recorded the demands made by the two kidnappers and he handed over the cassette to the investigating officer. PW-14 seized the said cassette (Ex.A) under panchnama at Exh.130 and recorded the voice samples of the accused Kuldip (Exh.B) and the juvenile(Exh.) which forwarded to Dr. Chongthan Singh(PW-13), Assistant Director, Forensic Science, Central Forensic Laboratory Chandigarh for analysis and report. He deposed that he had received three sealed packets containing three audio cassettes marked Ex. A, B, and C.( PW-13 ) marked the conversation of the speakers in the cassette at Exh. A as Q1 and Q2 and the voice samples of Kuldip and Mahendra Singh as S1 and S2 respectively. After scientifically examining the voice quality of the questioned and specimen voice recording PW-13 vide report at Ex.109 opined that the questioned voice exhibit of the speaker at Ex.Q1 matched with the specimen voice sample at Ex. S1, whereas the questioned voice exhibit of the speaker at Ex.Q2 matched with the sample voice at Ex. S2 and thus the voice analysis work as corroborative evidence.
JUDGMENT
The findings of the trial court primarily based on the testimony of ( PW-2) Punit, the victim of the crime and (PW-1 ) Dilip Sangvi, the father of the victim and evidence of PW-7 and PW-12 as well as the medical evidence and the recoveries of the weapons made pursuant to the disclosure of the accused serve as corroborative evidence and thus charges against the accused framed for the offence punishable under Section 364-A r/w 34 of the I.P.C. They sentenced them to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default S.I. for 15 days and further convicted under Section 3 r/w 24 and 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default SI for 15 days