Question: Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document?] Answer Yes, a tape record of speech includes as a document under the Indian Evidence Act, provided they satisfy certain conditions. This position has been laid down by the apex… Read More »

Question: Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document?] Answer Yes, a tape record of speech includes as a document under the Indian Evidence Act, provided they satisfy certain conditions. This position has been laid down by the apex court in various judicial pronouncements. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines ‘document’ as any matter expressed or described upon...

Question: Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Is the ‘tape record of speech’ a document?]

Answer

Yes, a tape record of speech includes as a document under the Indian Evidence Act, provided they satisfy certain conditions. This position has been laid down by the apex court in various judicial pronouncements.

Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines ‘document’ as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.

In R. v. Maqsud Ali [[1966] 1 QB 688], it was held that-

“it would be wrong to deny the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved and the voices recorded are properly identified. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each case”.

In Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra [1968 AIR 147], the Supreme Court observed that “since the tape-records are prone to tampering, the time, place, and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness. It is necessary that such evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with.”

Relying on R. v. Maqsud Ali, a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas [1975], held that the tape-records of speeches were admissible in evidence on satisfying that:

  1. The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it;
  2. Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record; and
  3. The subject matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant authority according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-09-14T06:39:27+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story