Bench: Justice A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua\
Facts:
Jagdishprasad Ramnarayan Khandelwal was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and was admitted to the nursing home of Dr. Adatia, the patient was kept under observation. According to Dr. Adatia the patient developed paralysis of the ileum after performing operation and was sent to Bombay Hospital.
Jagdishprasad died on the third day. The hospital issued a death intimation card as “paralytic ileus and peritonitis” following with an operation giving rise to negligence on the part of Dr. Adatia.
The Appellant allowed the disposal of the dead body without ordering postmortem. However, there was a request for an inquest from the Police Station which was registered by the coroner court. The Coroner’s Court send letters to professional people concerned in inquest to get the explanation of the doctor who treated and operated upon the patient.
The Appellant was the Coroner of Mumbai and was trying to obtain illegal gratifications to the tune of Rs. 15,000 from an honest doctor, whom he had planned to implicate in a case involving negligent death of a penalty.
The present case arose out of Appeal against conviction of the Appellant under Section 161 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. High Court of Bombay imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of six months.
Issue:
Weather tape recorded conversation is admissible as evidence in spite of the violation of the Telegraph Act?
Findings:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided-
- The conversation is relevant to the matters in issue.
- There is identification of the voice.
- The accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is provided by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record.
It was held that tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible. Tape recorded evidence is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident.
