Are call recording admissible as evidence?

In Bengaluru don't want to reveal case number on public platform

When you seek legal advice you must completely and openly state your case to the lawyer and the lawyer is bound to keep things confidential. If you cannot state everything this is not the forum for you to seek advice. This is a public forum. From your first post you appear as a complainant and not a defendant.

Yes, I was the first complianant later they used a woman and filed fake 354 now they are harrasing with that fake case. They submitted fabricated backdated letters to SP office and HRC now they disowned them during cross. I said the same thing that this a public forum if you can share your phone number I can explain it over phone. What will you do with case No. anyway only case history would be visible charge and deposition are in Kannada. Moreover you profession is stated as Scientist/Engineer. I met many lawerys before also hand over certified copies other evidence some of them gone through it others did not even look at it. I spent me more than Rs 1000 just for photocoipes and courier charges lawyers would insist hardcopies to be sent not soft copies on WhatsApp or email. I spend a lot of money on consulting, lawyers fee and traveling to court and lawyers office. I stated everything that is relavant to this post. Rest of the details need to be taken seperately.

Miost of the issues stated by you in the subsequent posts are contradicting or new information to that of the previous posts.

However this is not a platform for expressing your experiences (whether good or bad) with the advocates you met. The experts/lawyers of this forum can guide you properly only if you furnish essential information (the case number or the details of the parties need not be mentioned), while seeking opinion on the exact problem you face.

In one place you say that you are the complainant and in other post you mention yourself as the accused.

All the while you were talking about one case only, but now you state that there are two cases. 

If you cannot express your actual problem with the details or background of the case, you may get only misguiding information based on the information you have given here.

If you are so much interested to contact/consult any lawyer of this forum you can send a request to the chosen lawyer through PM facilities available in this forum and get the issues properly clarified

Call recordings in India have become a crucial form of evidence in the legal proceedings. The admissibility of call recordings has been a matter of debate in the Indian Courts.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 defines electronic record of sound stored, received or sent in electronic form. Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in provides conditions for the admissibility of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. The recording must have been made in the ordinary course of business and the person who is recording must be authorised to do so, the documented speech must be with explicit permission of at least one of the speakers. Section 85B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the law regarding alteration of recorded evidence.

Factors affecting Admissibility:

Consent: At least one party to the conversation must consent to the recording, although there can be exceptions in case of serious crimes like kidnapping, extortion or terrorism.

Relevance: The conversation recorded must be directly relevant to the matter being disputed in the court. Irrelevant conversations hold no value as evidence.

Authentication: The recordings must be genuine and unaltered, there should be a certificate from a qualified person verifying the recording’s authenticity.

Reference case Laws:

 S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964

In this case the Supreme Court accepted a telephonic recording of a conversation between two parties after examining the evidentiary value. The Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was brought in the year 2000, hence the evidence submitted was accepted only because it helped to resolve the case.

R.M. Malkani v. the State of Maharashtra 1973

In this case the High Court held that the telephone call put by Dr. Motwani to the appellant was tapped by the Police officers, and there was a violation of section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Later it was held by that the right to privacy in the Indian Constitution protects only innocent citizens and not those who try to vindicate the police because they are guilty of immoral crimes. The court held the recordings as admissible despite the violation of the telegraph.

In the case of Capt. Prithvi Pal Singh v. Sukh Dev Singh 1996 the Supreme Court established the admissibility of electronically recorded conversations as evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided that the recording is relevant, the voices are identifiable, and its accuracy is proven. Although this did not address the issue of consent for recording, which was later clarified in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) the court held that recordings made without the consent of at least one party involved might not be admissible, except in situations of serious crimes.

Whether electronic recordings will be admissible or not depends upon the nature, authenticity and relevance of the recording and upon the facts of the said case. Each case is unique and the court will consider specific circumstances of the case while deciding the admissibility of the recording.

Hope it helps you with your query

Regards,

Parth Chawla

I am familiar with this R.M Malkani v. the State of Maharashtra 1973. If A calls B and pesters him or threatens later A files false case with help of C. During cross B wants to prove that A filed this case with ulterior motive call recording is a proof. When someone calls and make threates how can the person receiving the call take consent? B doesn't require A's consent. If tha is the case then anybody can call anybody abuse them and give threats later escape the conviction by stating consent was not taken by the receiver. Consent only matters when people share something private and later if the other party blackmails to produce his words as evidence that can be disputed.