NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Tape recordings can only act as corroborative evidence

Legal experts said on Monday that conversations, like those captured on video by former cricketer Manoj Prabhakar relating to match-fixing in Indian cricket, can be relied upon only as corroborative evidence in Indian courts -- that too if their authenticity and orginality is proved.

However, in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the recording cannot be relied upon. Before any court can accept the evidence of tape records, it must carefully consider the genuineness of the tapes, according to a Calcutta High Court judgement.

Usually, as it is expected to be, the tape recording of voice is done without the knowledge and consent of the person concerned and very often he is being trapped unknowingly into it. ''Therefore, anything which is born of trickery or trapping or cunningness, should be very cautiously and carefully considered.

"After all, ventriloquism is not very uncommon and before any court can rely on a tape record, the court must carefully guard itself against possible tampering and manufacturing. It should look for independent corroboration and intrinsic evidence before it relies on the tape.''

The court should be cautious to accept the testimony of tape recording and should reject it unless there is further independent and reliable corroboration, said the Calcutta High Court. Also, the custody of the tape record must be beyond suspicion before a tape can be accepted.

A.S. Chandhiok, president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, said the videotapes produced by tahelka.com -- which showed several prominent cricketers, officials and others acknowledging instances of match-fixing in Indian cricket -- are admissible in Indian courts provided they are proved to be genuine, authentic and relevant to the case.

"Prabhakar and his associates may be prosecuted separately for invasion of privacy or defamation. But as long as the evidence is relevant, the court may assert the right to information as well," Chandhiok said.

Another judgement of the Madras High Court is significant here. It says a tape recorded statement is admissible if there is no dispute about the identity of speakers, the accuracy of the recorded statement is duly proved, the possibility of tampering with the statement is ruled out, the cassette is carefully sealed and kept in the custody of a judicial officer and the voice of parties are clearly audible.

In 1982, the Supreme Court said in one of its rulings: ''Tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.''

T.L. Garg, advocate at the Delhi High Court, said even English courts view the tape recordings before admitting it as evidence. ''But the court must be satisfied that the evidence yielded is not only relevant but is authentic and original.''

UNI