Tape-recorded conversation admissible in bribery prosecution when accuracy and authenticity are proved, with no Section 162 or Article 20(3) breach.

A contemporaneous tape-recorded conversation was held admissible when the accuracy of the recording, the identity of the speakers, and the absence of tampering were proved; it could be treated as res gestae and corroborative evidence. The Court further stated that a voluntary conversation with a decoy witness was not a statement to a police officer within Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and did not infringe Article 20(3) because there was no compulsion or coercion. On the bribery charge under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, the decoy witness, investigating officer, and tape recording together were treated as sufficient to sustain the conviction, while the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tape-recorded conversation was admissible in evidence and could be used without offending Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the evidence proved the offence of attempting to bribe a public servant under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the tape-recorded conversation was admissible in evidence and could be used without offending Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A contemporaneous tape-recorded conversation is relevant and admissible when the accuracy of the recording, the identity of the speakers, and the absence of tampering are satisfactorily proved. The recorded dialogue was treated as part of the res gestae and as corroborative of direct testimony. The conversation was not a statement made to a police officer within the meaning of Section 162, because the accused was speaking to the decoy witness and was unaware of the police presence. Nor was there compulsion within Article 20(3), since the statements were voluntary and not extracted by duress, coercion, or force. The lack of knowledge that the conversation was being recorded did not by itself render the evidence inadmissible.

Conclusion: The tape-recorded conversation was admissible and its use did not violate Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence proved the offence of attempting to bribe a public servant under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The evidence of the decoy witness was corroborated by the investigating officer in respect of the earlier offer, and the later offer was supported by the tape-recorded conversation and surrounding circumstances. The courts below found the recording genuine and accepted the prosecution version. The conviction on both counts was therefore sustained, though the sentence was considered on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, while the conviction remained undisturbed and the matter was otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous and accurately proved tape-recorded conversation is admissible in evidence, and a voluntary conversation with a decoy witness is neither a statement to police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor compelled testimony under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

---