Madras HC Allows Forensic Examination Of Video In Corruption Case, Says Apprehension That Content May Be Altered No Ground To Refuse Analysis
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi, allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the trial court's order which had denied a forensic examination of electronic evidence and the securing of a voice sample. The Court directed that the pen drive and video recording submitted by the petitioner be examined by a government forensic laboratory, and the voice sample of a witness be obtained under due process. The Court also directed the trial to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
The petitioner, formerly serving as the Electrical Inspector for Tirunelveli District, was facing trial under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegedly, he demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 8,000 from a contractor, who is also the defacto complainant (PW-2), in exchange for a safety certificate for a 20 KVA generator. Following a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, the petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2018. The trial was at the stage of defence witness examination when the present application was filed.
In the trial proceedings, the petitioner sought forensic examination of a pen drive (marked as Ex-D6) which contained three audio recordings of conversations with PW-2. One of these conversations was recorded on the date of the alleged trap. The petitioner asserted that the content of these recordings contradicted the prosecution's version and supported his defence. He further requested the court to secure the voice sample of PW-2 for the purpose of scientific verification of the audio content under Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act.
Additionally, the petitioner relied on a video recording that purportedly showed a conversation between him and the wife of LW-7, referencing the removal of CCTV footage by the investigation agency. He claimed that this video indicated suppression of crucial evidence.
The application for forensic examination and voice sample collection was dismissed by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, on three grounds: (a) the video recording was made four years after the incident, (b) the individuals appearing in the recording were not examined, and (c) the possibility of tampering, suggested by DW-1, rendered the electronic recordings unreliable.
Challenging this rejection, the petitioner submitted that the theoretical possibility of tampering, as mentioned by DW-1, could not replace expert forensic analysis. He argued that denying scientific scrutiny undermined his right to a fair trial.
Opposing the petition, the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that the application was a delay tactic and stated that the video in question was created years after the event. He pointed out that the individuals in the video were not examined during trial and that the alleged CCTV footage was not part of the original prosecution material. He further submitted that compelling a witness like PW-2 to provide a voice sample would infringe upon his privacy and could lead to misuse in similar corruption trials.
"The fact that the video was recorded at a later point in time does not, by itself, render it inadmissible or irrelevant." The Court observed that if the video recording was authentic, it could substantiate the defence claim of suppression of crucial evidence.
Regarding the audio recordings in Ex-D6, the Court stated, "Whether these recordings support or rebut the allegations is a matter for trial, but they cannot be excluded from scientific scrutiny merely on speculative grounds."
On the matter of potential tampering, the Court recorded, "The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis." The judgment clarified that lay witness opinions on the possibility of editing could not replace expert forensic opinion.
On the issue of obtaining voice samples, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting: "Until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime."
The Court also cited Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which authorises a Magistrate to direct any person, including an accused, to provide voice samples, with certain conditions. The relevant portion was quoted: "Provided that the Magistrate may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, order any person to give such specimen or sample without him being arrested."
Addressing the privacy concerns raised by the respondent, the Court referred to multiple precedents including Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It recorded: "The right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest." The Court concluded: "The refusal to call for the voice sample of PW-2, when it is the only means to conduct a scientific comparison, cannot be justified merely on the plea of privacy, especially when the sample is sought under judicial supervision and for the limited purpose of expert analysis in a pending trial."
Further, the Court observed: "Denial of access to forensic comparison in the face of specific electronic material forming part of defence evidence amounts to curtailment of such a right." It concluded that the trial court’s order was legally flawed: "The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge suffers from non-application of mind to the legal principles governing expert evidence and fair trial."
The Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order dated 01.02.2025. It directed that the trial court: "Permit the forensic examination of Ex-D6 (pen drive) and the video recording by a competent Government Forensic Laboratory, by fixing an outer time limit."
It further directed the trial court to: "Take necessary steps to secure the voice sample of PW-2, under due process, for the limited purpose of expert comparison."
Finally, the Court instructed: "Proceed with the trial expeditiously, since it is of the year 2020, in accordance with law."
The Court also closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A.S. Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Case Title: C.J. Christopher Signi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Crl.RC.(MD)No.475 of 2025
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi
