The tools of modern technology like tape records , video films, DNA tests, Polygraph test(lie

detection), etc. make the probability of truth highly certain. It is a general rule of evidence that all such
evidence is admitted which helps the court in arriving at the truth.
Thus, tape-recording can be used a evidence in a court to corroborate the statements of a person who
deposes that he had carried on conversation with a particular person. A previous statement of a
person which has been tape-recorded can also be used to test the veracity of witness and to impeach
his impartiality.
In Abdul Razak vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 283), the Supreme Court observed that
if the court is satisfied that there is not trick photography and the photograph is above suspicion , it
may allow the photograph to be received in evidence. Evidence of dog trafficking, even if admissible,
is not of much weight.
In Yusufali vs State of Maharshtra (1967) Bom L.R. 76 (SC), the Supreme Court observed: If
a statement is relevant, an accurate tape-record of the statement is also relevant and admissible. The
time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voice
must be properly indentified. One of the features of the magnetic tape-recording is the ability to erase
and re-use the evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the record has not been tampered with.
In Mahabir Parsad vs Surinder Kaur (AIR 1982 SC 1043), the court held that tape-recorded
conversion can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the
parties to the conversion. In the absence of any such evidence, the tape cannot be used as evidence in
itself.
In R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157), In this case, the prosecution case
was based solely on the tape recorded conversation, which clearly proved the appellants intention to
obtain a bribe. The appellants contention was that such conversation cannot be admitted under the
provisions of Indian Evidence Act, moreover as it was unlawful. The Supreme Court held such
conversation to be relevant. The Supreme Court laid down the law relating to tape-recorded
conversation as :

Tape-recorded conversation is admissible in evidence provided the conversation is relevant to

be matter in issue, the voice can be properly identified, and the possibility of erasing parts of the tape
is eliminated.
When the tape-recording is a contemporaneous record of such conversation (i.e. made
simultaneously with the facts in issue or relevant facts), it is a relevant fact under Section 6. It is res
gestae. Since it is like a photograph of a relevant incident, it is also admissible under Section 7. Such
recording is also a document under Section 3. The recording is also admissible under Section 8,9,10
or 11.
As to evidentiary value, the court has said that such evidence must be received with caution.
Thus, tape-recording must be genuine and free from tampering or mutilation; the court should be
otherwise satisfied of its accuracy.
Even if the tape recording is obtained unlawfully, it will be admissible in evidence, as
detection by deception is a form of police procedure. In Magraj Patodia vs R. K. Birla (1970) 2
SCC 889, it was held that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar
to its admissibility provided its relevance and genuineness are proved.
The Madras High Court has , in R. Venkatesan vs State (1980 Cr LJ 41), considered the
evidentiary value of a tape-recorded conversation. In that case, the conversation was not audible
throughout, and was broken at a very crucial place. The accused alleged that the same has not been
tampered with. The accuracy of the recording was not proved, and the voices were also not properly
indentified. In the circumstances, the court concluded that it would not be safe to rely on the taperecorded conversation as corroborating the evidence of the prosecution witness.
As regards admissibility of tape-recordings, the Bombay High Court in C.R. Mehta vs State of
Maharashtra, 1993 Cr. LJ 2863) has observed: The law is quite clear that tape-recorded

evidence if it is to be acceptable, must be sealed as the earliest point of time, and not opened except
under orders of the court.
In Ram Singh vs Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp. SCC 611, the Supreme Court has tightened the
rule as to relevancy of tape to this extent that it must be shown that after the recording the tape was
kept in proper custody. In that case the Deputy Commissioner had left the tape with the stenographer.
That was held to be sufficient to destroy the authenticity of the tape.
The tape-recorded call can be led into evidence, provided the conditions laid down in R.M.
Malkani case are satisfied.