VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) involves a question whether a prosecution witness in a criminal trial can be called upon to get his voice tape recorded for enabling an accused to get the same compared with an alleged tape recorded voice of the said witness.

(2.) Petitioners are facing trial in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on the charges of alleged commission of offences of criminal house trespass of shop No. 835/1 Krishna Cloth Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to Ganpat Ram of M/s. Laxmi Textiles, Chandni Ghowk, Delhi and theft of Cloth worth Rs. 4500.00 belonging to said Ganpat Ram punishable under Sections 451, 341 and 380 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) During the trial Shri Ram Chand Juneja (Public Witness 6) appeared as a witness for the prosecution. During cross-examination a suggestion was put to the wilness to the effect that he had admitted before the petitioners that he had not seen anything about the occurrence and that he was appearing as a witness under pressure of Ganpat Ram. Witness denied that suggestion. He was confronted with a tape recorded conversation. Witness denied that his voice was recorded in that tape. Thereafter the petitioners brought an application to the effect that aforesaid witness be summoned and that he should be called upon to get his voice tape recorded so that comparison could be done between his sample voice and his alleged tape recorded voice.