Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009
High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Vipin Sanghi J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02-03-2015
BRANCH OF FORENSIC SCIENCE: Voice analysis (Forensic physics)
RELEVANT SECTIONS/ACTS:
Indian penal code (IPC), 1860
- Section 7 – Sense of expression once explained.
- Section 20 – Court of Justice
- Section (3)(d)(i) – This law states that criminal misconduct is committed by a public servant if he “by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage”, stands established in the present case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc),1973
- Section 319 of – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.
BACK STORY
On 10.03.1998 at 10:30 A.M. Ms. Vinita Mohan (PW-5) lodged the F.I.R RC No. DAI19980019 to the Superintendent of Police (SP), CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), Delhi against the accused Rajinder Singh(A-1) who was demanding a bribe of Rs. 7,000-/- and further Rs.6000-/- per month for the approval of the serial.
Then the Inspector HS Karyamal (PW-7) proceeds the investigation with a plan to raid at the premises of accused and then he constitutes the raising party including CBI officials and 2 independent witnesses namely Sh. Bhupendra Chandra (PW-6) and Smt. Veena (PW-2) and PW-7 asked the PW-5 to call the Dr.Harjlal (co-accused) at 1:00 p.m. and at 2:30 p.m. bribe were demanded and accused told PW-5 to call him after 4:00 p.m. Then on this information all CID officials planned the raid by giving counted GC notes of Rs.7000-/- on which phenolphthalein powder applied to trap the accused by a chemical reaction which this chemical produces on touching the exhibits. The remote-cum-transmitter and remote-cum- receiver was also given to PW-5 to hear the conversation going between the accused and the complainant.
At 4:30 CBI official leave the office and complainant along with shadow witness (PW-2) went into the Rajendra Bhawan Lawn and then PW-2 signal at the time of accused demanded the bribe and then the raiding party rushed into the lawn and seized all the evidence ( like GG notes, cassette, all the exhibits he touched) and sent them for forensic analysis.
CHEMICAL EXAMINATION
The chemical examination of the 2 sealed lass bottles marked as LHW and LSPW of the accused upper left safari shirt pocket and the videocassette accepted by him through his right hand respectively sent to Sh. K.S. Chhabra, senior scientific officer –cum- Asstt, chemical examiner, CFSL proved his report with regard to the analysis of the two sealed bottles marked LHW and LHPW containing the light pink colour liquid and pink colour liquid respectively. These samples tested positive for the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate and hence the chemical analysis of the seized evidence shows the involvement an acceptance of a bribe by accused (Rajinder Singh).
VOICE IDENTIFICATION REPORT
As per the CFSL report dated 09.09.1998, the spectrographic analysis of the alleged telephonic conversation recorded in cassette marked QA(T) with the specimen voice samples of Neelima Harjal (Ex. SA (NH)) and the appellant (Ex. SA (RP)) could not be carried out, because the recordings had not been done under identical conditions, and that even the auditory analysis of conversation recorded in cassettes marked QA (MC) and QA(TR) (which found to contain the same set of conversation) could not carry out with SA(RP) (the specimen voice of the appellant), as the specimen and the questioned recordings do not have sufficient common sentences, has merit.
Therefore, it would require examination whether independent of the tape-recorded conversation; there was sufficient evidence to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences as charged.
JUDGMENT
The court under trial witnesses a total of 8 witnesses and the testimony of the complainant supporting the version of the prosecution stand duly corroborates by the testimony of PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 Inspector HS karmyal (trap laying Officer) and the forensic chemical report; phenolphthalein test. It established that the accused has accepted the bribe and involve in this corruption case. Still, due to the lack of voice spectrograph comparison report analysis of co-accused (Dr. Nilima Harjal) and the specimen sample recorded voice, it established that co-accused was not involved in this crime and charged framed against the accused nos.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under section (u/s) 7 and u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/.-, and in default of payment of the fine – Simple Imprisonment (SI) for three months u/s 7 of PC Act. For offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the appellant has sentenced to undergo RI for two years along with a fine of Rs 20,000/-, and in default of payment of the said fine further SI for three months.