https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197432 Suspicious voice identification and an unverified tape-recorded conversation could not, without strict safeguards, sustain a conviction. The Court emphasised that voice evidence requires clear proof of the speaker's identity, the recording's accuracy, absence of tampering, and reliable custody of the cassette; taped conversation is only corroborative and cannot stand alone. It found material infirmities in the identification process, no dependable linkage between the appellant and the mobile numbers relied on, and weak recovery evidence from a place not shown to belong to the appellant. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant received the benefit of doubt. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2018 12:11:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197432 Suspicious voice identification and an unverified tape-recorded conversation could not, without strict safeguards, sustain a conviction. The Court emphasised that voice evidence requires clear proof of the speaker's identity, the recording's accuracy, absence of tampering, and reliable custody of the cassette; taped conversation is only corroborative and cannot stand alone. It found material infirmities in the identification process, no dependable linkage between the appellant and the mobile numbers relied on, and weak recovery evidence from a place not shown to belong to the appellant. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant received the benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197432