Proper identification of voices and accuracy of recordings are essential for admissibility of tape recordings and electronic records under the Evidence Act.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and decretal order dated 11.7.2013 passed in I.A. No.54 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No.19 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil, allowing the Petition filed by the Respondent to play the compact disc marked as Ex.P7 in the Court and receive it as evidence.

2. The Respondent/husband has initiated Divorce proceedings as against his wife in H.M.O.P. No.19 of 2011 alleging cruelty against the wife. The Petitioner/wife denied the allegations levelled against her by the Respondent in the Counter filed by her. During the examination of the Respondent as PW1, the compact disc was marked as Ex.P7 subject to the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/wife. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner/wife abused him in a filthy language over cell phone and the Respondent has recorded the same in his cell phone and downloaded in a compact disc which is exhibited as Ex.P7. He filed an Interlocutory Application seeking permission of the Court to display the said compact disc before the Court so as to enable the Court to hear the conversation between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

3. The Petitioner resisted the said Application contending that the Respondent did not produce the cell phone and the memory card through which he is alleged to have recorded the conversation and no steps have been taken by him to get an expert opinion to identify the voice that it is the voice of the Revision Petitioner. It was contended that in the absence of expert’s opinion, it is not permissible for the Court to hear the conversation recorded in the compact disc. It is also pointed out that there is every possibility of erasure, addition and manipulation by using the electronic technology and without identifying the voice recorded in the Respondent’s cell phone, the Respondent is not entitled to seek leave of the Court to hear the alleged conversation by playing the compact disc before the Court.

4. The Trial Court allowed the said Petition on the ground that as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Trial Court itself has got power to compare and identify the voice recorded in the compact disc with that of the voice of the Revision Petitioner/wife and the display of the said CD would help the Court to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The Trial Court also directed the Respondent to produce the cell phone and other instruments for playing the CD.

5. Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, reiterating the contentions made by the Petitioner before the Trial Court, submitted that the Trial Court erred in allowing the Petition without sending it to the expert for comparison of the voice recorded in the compact disc with that of the voice of the Revision Petitioner before receiving the said compact disc in evidence.

6. On the other hand, Mr. S. Pon. Senthilkumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order and contended that the evidence afforded by the tape recorded talk has to be considered in appreciating the language used by the Revision Petitioner and the same would help the Court in deciding whether the allegations made by the Respondent were substantiated or not.

7. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side.

8. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had allowed the Respondent to display the recorded talk between himself and the Revision Petitioner in which according to him, unparliamentary and abusive language was used by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondent which was recorded in his cell phone and subsequently, downloaded in a compact disc Ex.P7. It is no doubt true that a contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. For use of a tape recorded statement, the identification of the taped voice is a crucial matter and indeed, such proper identi