Audio clips might not be admissible as evidence in court: Legal experts

BENGALURU: If leading legal experts are to be believed, the special investigation team (SIT) which the government intends to set up to probe audio clips released by chief minister HD Kumaraswamy, which involve leaders of the BJP including state president BS Yeddyurappa trying to poach JD(S) leader Sharanagouda, cannot be used in a court of law.
“The absence of legal provisions regarding voice samples could negate the advantage of audio clips as they may not be admissible as evidence in court,” said M T Nanaiah, senior counsel and a leading criminal lawyer.“There is no provision in law under which a person could be asked to give voice samples to link a person to a case.”
Quoting Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, Nanaiah said: “Mere audio/video evidence is insufficient to prove guilt. It needs supporting documents or other proof. The SIT will face a challenge collecting supporting evidence without relying only on the audio clips.”
Another leading criminal lawyer from Mysuru, who did not want to be named, quoted a 2017 Gujarat high court verdict that held that though voice spectrography tests are not a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, it is not permissible to subject an accused to it since there is no specific provision empowering a police officer or the court in law to do so. “This is also true of tests like brain mapping, lie detector tests, narco analysis tests etc,” he added.
The lacuna in the law forced Sharanagouda, son of JD(S) MLA Naganagouda Kandkur, to file an FIR against the parties to the conversation —Yeddyurappa, BJP MLAs Preetham Gowda (Hassan) and Shivanagouda Naik (Devadurga) and Yeddyurappa's adviser and former journalist MB Maramkal — under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was lodged by Raichur district police.
In the FIR, Sharangouda alleges that the BJP leaders threatened that they would “end” his political life of his father, if he did not get his father to resign and that he (Sharanagouda) contest a bypoll on a BJP ticket. Sharangouda submitted the 80-minute audio clip to the police on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. BJP lawyers however dismissed the case as weak.
“Our main aim will be ensure the SIT does not take off,” said one lawyer. “We will take up the issue once the government issues a notification as the case itself doesn't warrant an SIT.”
But another renowned lawyer from Bengaluru, who also did not want to be named, pointed to a decision of the Rajasthan high court to defend an SIT. “The police cannot be restrained from taking voice samples of an accused to establish his/her involvement in a crime for the reason that there is no provision under law which permits anyone to take voice samples of the accused during the course of investigation,” the lawyer said.
However, all of them agreed that it was impossible for the SIT or any investigating agency to complete a probe within 15 days, pointing out that it took more than two years for SITs to probe illegal mining and the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh.