Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Subash Vidyarthi observed that an illegally secured telephonic conversation between two accused would be admissible as evidence.

• The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi v. State of UP Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow and Another.

Background

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has recorded a telephonic communication between two accused persons on a digital voice recorder.
• Aggrieved from that recording the applicant (now revisionist) sought his discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence.
• But the Trial Court rejected his application based upon the aforementioned contention.
  • The revisionist filed a revision petition before the HC contending that interception of messages can only take place with due order of Government.
• The respondents contended that recording of conversation between two persons without interfering in the communication system will not amount to interception of the messages.
• In this case, the communication made by one accused person to the other reached him and thereafter recorded on another device called digital voice recorder.
  • The revisionist called it ‘interception’, however the court took note of a few meanings of ‘interception’ and held that communication was not ‘intercepted’.

Court’s Observations

• The HC observed that the law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the grounds that it had been obtained illegally.
  • Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant.
• However, the court noted that the telephonic conversation recorded in digital voice recorder was not solitary evidence, there was other evidence on which the court dismissed the revision in the present case.

Admissibility of Evidence

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is based on the principles of relevancy and admissibility.
• It provides a framework for the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that only relevant and reliable evidence is presented in court.
• The Act makes the process of evidence presentation in India both systematic and coherent.
• Relevance is the cornerstone of admissibility under IEA.
• Section 5 of the Act states that evidence is relevant if it is related to the fact in issue or is connected to the fact in issue by a chain of circumstances.
• In other words, evidence must have some bearing on the case and be capable of shedding light on the issues being litigated.
• Evidence that is irrelevant is not admissible in court.
• Section 65B of the IEA deals with the admissibility of electronic records.

Admissibility of Telephonic Conversation

Landmark cases related to admissibility of telephonic conversation are mentioned below:

• R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973):
  • This case established the principle that a telephonic conversation can be admissible as evidence if it is relevant and does not violate any provision of IEA.
  • The SC held that if the conversation was tape-recorded in a manner that the accuracy of the recording could be verified, it could be considered as evidence.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005):
  • In this case, a question arose regarding the legality and admissibility of intercepted telephone calls in the context of telephone conversation.
  • The SC held that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible.
  • The Court reiterated that there is a warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978):
  • In this case, the SC held that telephone conversations, if relevant, can be admitted as evidence, but the person recording the conversation must be a party to it.
  • Unauthorized interception and recording of telephone conversations without the consent of any of the parties are not admissible.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004):
  • This case did not directly deal with telephonic conversations but laid down principles of fairness and transparency in trials.
  • It emphasized the importance of providing all relevant evidence, including recorded telephonic conversations, to ensure a fair trial.
• P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir (2003):
  • This case dealt with the admissibility of telephonic conversations in the context of a civil dispute.
  • The SC ruled that recorded telephone conversations could be admitted as secondary evidence if the original conversation was relevant and does not violate any provision of IEA.