Criminal Petition No. 15368 Of 2016
High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Sunil Gaur J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29-04-19
BRANCH OF FORENSIC SCIENCE: Voice analysis (Forensic physics)
RELEVANT SECTIONS/ACTS:
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 13(1) (d) – Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
- Section 7 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Section 120(b) – Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
BACK STORY
On 31.12.2017, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Sushil Kumar Jain (PW1) (complainant) who was an authorized signatory of J.V. Industries (P) Ltd. against the Sanjay Kumar(A-1), Superintendent and his co-accused Hari Chand posted as Inspector. Subhash Narin posted as Assistant Commissioner in Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, Division VIII, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
On 19.12.2007, a team of anti-Evasion Cell of Central Excise conducted a search at the premises of J.V. Industries and the A-1 told the complainant on the phone to visit the factory where he was taken to co-accused Hari Chand. He demanded the bribe of Rs.10 Lakhs to settled the case of the complainant in an anti-evasion cell by sending a favorable report. Then the complainant did not pay the bribe and made a complaint to CBI.
Then, Complainant (PW1), his son Manoj Kumar Jain and independent witness Neeraj Jain (PW12). Inspector Rajesh Chahal (PW16),) introduced to each other and contents of complaint explained and the PW-1 was given with digital recorder to record the conversation between the accused Sanjay Kumar on the direction of inspector and the accused call the complaint to come to the factory whereas all the other official remains outside then accused demanded bribe by the gesture of fingers.
On that note, On 01.01.2008, the trap was lay by the trap team consisting of TLO, Inspector Rajesh Chahal (PW16), Inspector S.C. Bhalla, Inspector Prem Chand, SI Nikhil Malhotra, two independent witnesses, complainant and his son Manoj Kumar Jain by the Inspector Sandeep Chaudhary (PW15)(Trap laying Officer) and the complainant was handed with the GC notes having phenolphthalein powder which turns pink when comes in contact with a colorless solution of sodium carbonate. The trap team takes position near Cross River Mall, Karkardooma where the accused call the complainant to come. At about 10.00 a.m., the complainant (PW1) made a call from his mobile phone No.9810050612 to the mobile phone 9999898301 of accused Hari Chand. The conversation which had taken place between them was recorded during which accused Hari Chand told that he along with accused Sanjay Kumar Singh was coming in front of Cross River Mall in about 15 minutes in the Maruti Zen car then the trap team caught the accused Sanjay Kumar and Hari Chand accepting the bribe and they were caught from wrists.
CHEMICAL EXAMINATION REPORT
The bribe was accepted by Sanjay Kumar(Accused) and handed to the co-accused and the chemical analysis of the hand by which the accused accepted the GC notes were turned pink when dipped into the colorless solution of Sodium Carbonate. All the exhibits of the accused i.e. his pant pocket, his shirt pocket was sent to the laboratory for analysis which also proved acceptance and gratification of the bribe amount.
VOICE IDENTIFICATION REPORT
The voice sample of Hari Chand (Appellant) from which bribe amount recovered was sent to the FSL for spectrographic voice analysis and the voice analysis was conducted by the voice Identification D.K.Tanwar (PW3) who state that voice sample did not match with the questioned DVR( Digital Voice Recording) recorded by the (PW-1) and it also stated by the report the recording is of 60 min while the complainant said that the recording was made 2hrs long so it stated by the voice expert that the digital evidence cassette(DVR) was tampered and cannot rely upon.
JUDGMENT
Due to the lack of any eyewitness and defense witness, The above voice identification report is not admissible in court in the absence of circumstantial evidence, so the court had convicted the accused(Sanjay Kumar) only and not the appellant and his co-accused under the offense punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and also for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-