It is settled law that rendering a tape recorded conversation can be legal evidence by way of corroborating the statement of a person who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on with the conversation or even if the statement of a person who deposes that he overheard the conversation between the two persons and what they actually stated had been tape recorded.
Tape recorded evidence conversation can only be used as corroborative evidence of such conversion deposed to by any of the parties to the Conversation .
Tape recorded conversation can only be corroborative evidence but cannot be direct, or primary evidence that the third person stated what the other speaker had told. however that weight to be given to such evidence will depend on the other factors which may be established in particular case.
In case of blackmail, bribery, threats, inducements to commit a crime, a sedition there cannot be better evidence then be spoken words transcribed on the tape.
It is something like a photograph of the offender caught red handed while committing the act of Murder or housebreaking. A tape recorded conversion is admissible in evidence provided the court is satisfied that there was no tempering, dubbing and imperfect recording.
Mahabir Prashad Varma v. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SC 1043
In this case the Supreme Court observed the report of the Rent collector on the issue of subletting remitted to him by this Court that the tenant had sublet one bedroom in the flat portion and the barsati portion in the month of May 1974, is not justified, as there was no proper evidence or material before the controller to come to the said finding. It was observed by the Supreme Court that this finding of the rent Controller is based essentially on the tape-recorded conversation between the tenant and husband of the landlady. Tape recorded conversion can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of any evidence of such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.
In the instant case , held the Supreme Court, there was no evidence of such evidence of such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the landlady, and in the absence of any such conversation , the tape recorded could be no proper evidence. It was further added that the tape recorded conversation , even if the same could be relied upon, would be of no particular help to the landlady on the expiry of the terms of the tenancy had not merely accepted the rent, but had manifested the intention of continuing the tenancy, notwithstanding the expiry of the term and the tape recorded conversation conversion goes to slow that the husband of the landlady was asking the tenant to induct suitable persons as sub-tenants under him.
Tape recorded evidence conversation can only be used as corroborative evidence of such conversion deposed to by any of the parties to the Conversation .
Tape recorded conversation can only be corroborative evidence but cannot be direct, or primary evidence that the third person stated what the other speaker had told. however that weight to be given to such evidence will depend on the other factors which may be established in particular case.
In case of blackmail, bribery, threats, inducements to commit a crime, a sedition there cannot be better evidence then be spoken words transcribed on the tape.
It is something like a photograph of the offender caught red handed while committing the act of Murder or housebreaking. A tape recorded conversion is admissible in evidence provided the court is satisfied that there was no tempering, dubbing and imperfect recording.
Mahabir Prashad Varma v. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SC 1043
In this case the Supreme Court observed the report of the Rent collector on the issue of subletting remitted to him by this Court that the tenant had sublet one bedroom in the flat portion and the barsati portion in the month of May 1974, is not justified, as there was no proper evidence or material before the controller to come to the said finding. It was observed by the Supreme Court that this finding of the rent Controller is based essentially on the tape-recorded conversation between the tenant and husband of the landlady. Tape recorded conversion can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of any evidence of such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.
In the instant case , held the Supreme Court, there was no evidence of such evidence of such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the landlady, and in the absence of any such conversation , the tape recorded could be no proper evidence. It was further added that the tape recorded conversation , even if the same could be relied upon, would be of no particular help to the landlady on the expiry of the terms of the tenancy had not merely accepted the rent, but had manifested the intention of continuing the tenancy, notwithstanding the expiry of the term and the tape recorded conversation conversion goes to slow that the husband of the landlady was asking the tenant to induct suitable persons as sub-tenants under him.
0 comments:
Post a Comment