JAI KISHAN DASS Vs. RAM BABU AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This petition has been preferred against an order passed by the trial Court whereby it has refused permission to place a taperecorded conversation of Mr. and Mrs. Bansal and one Girraj said to be the son of Rambabu Agarwal. The trial Court refused permission on the ground that tape recorded version cannot be given any credence. It observed that there is every possibility of tampering with such type of evidence.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the decision given by the Supreme Court of India in the cases reported as Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162 and R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 has argued that a tape recorded version is a good piece of evidence and it could not be shjut out merely by observing that there is possibility of is being tampered. According to him, the question of admission in evidence is one aspect of the matter and as to whether that evidence should be relied on or not is another aspect. According to him, first the tape recorder should be placed on record. It should be brought as a piece of evidence and what value is to be attached would be a secondary question.

(3.) APART from this, it be sen that the only line on which reliance is being sought to be placed by the present petitioner reads as under :-