R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra
Somya Rajawat
Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior, M.P.
This Case Commentary is written by Somya Rajawat, a Law Graduate of Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior, M.P.
Case No- 1973 AIR 157
Date of judgment- 22/09/1972
Court- Supreme Court of India.
Petitioner- R.M. Malkani
Respondent- State of Maharashtra.
Bench- Justice Ray, Justice A.N Dua, Justice I.D.
Introduction: -
This case revolves around section 6, section 7, and section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as well as section 4, section 5, and section 6 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This case deals with the tape recording under which the credibility of evidence is challenged. The main reason behind this case is to determine whether the tape recording is considered in the form of evidence. In this case, it was also held that the tape recorder statement is also a res gestae. In the era of AI, this is the first case to check the admissibility of electronic evidence.
Facts of the case: -
1. In this case, an old man arrives for a checkup with a doctor named Dr. Adatiya. He was very ill, and a lot of treatment was done, but just because of his age, the doctor could not save him after all the treatment, and he died because of it.
2. As we know, if a death occurs in the hospital, the junior doctor must obtain a certificate from the senior doctor, who will clarify that the death occurred due to natural circumstances and that no negligence took place on the part of the doctor.
3. In this case, the senior doctor was R.M. Malkani, and the junior doctor must obtain a certificate from the senior doctor.
4. R.M. Malkani, the senior doctor of the hospital, made a call to Dr. Adatiya, who was the junior doctor in the hospital.
5. After calling the junior doctor, the senior doctor made the demand that I will give you a certificate when you give me 5000 rupees, which we consider bravery.
6. The junior doctor denied giving 5000 rupees because he had not been negligent during the treatment.
7. After the junior doctor denied giving the amount, the senior doctor pressured him by saying that if he did not give him the amount, he would create a false certificate.
8. After pressuring the junior doctor for the amount, the senior doctor stated that if he did not give the amount, he would lose his job, and no one would hire him at any hospital.
9. When the junior doctor felt so much pressure, he shared the whole incident with Dr. Motwani.
10. Dr. Motwani had a conversation with Dr. R.M. Malkani about why he was asking for 5000 rupees from the junior doctor.
11. After this whole conversation, Dr. Motwani went to the police station and shared the entire conversation with the police, but the police did not believe the hearsay conversation.
12. After that, the police found a solution to connect Dr. Motwani with R.M. Malkani on the phone call, and all this conversation was recorded.
13. In this whole phone call conversation, R.M. Malkani was asking for a bribe of 5000 rupees and giving a threat that he would create a negligence certificate.
Issues raised in the case: -
· Can the tape-recorded conversation be admissible as evidence in a court of law if it is obtained through unlawful means?
· Does it satisfy the requirements of relevance, authenticity, and reliability?
· Whether the evidence was illegally obtained?
· Does the admissibility of the tape-recorded statement violate the privacy of the individual?
Contention: -
1. The telephonic conversation between Dr. Motwani and Dr. R.M. Malkani was recorded on the tape but was illegal because it contradicts Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, according to which it is not admissible.
2. The conversation between the doctors is recorded on the tape under investigation because the investigating officers asked for more clarity, and this conversation was not admissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. It also violated Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Judgement of the case: -
The Supreme Court held that the tape-recorded conversation is admissible in evidence because the voice is audible and the probability of making any changes to the parts of the voice is eliminated. It was also stated that the photograph-based recording is admissible under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The court also clarified that the recording is only permissible when it is genuine and free from alteration or tampering. If the recording of evidence is obtained from unlawful sources, it is admissible as evidence only when it is dealt with under the detection of deception by a police officer. It was also clarified that recording any statement as per the guidance of authority does not breach any individual's privacy because it occurs during an investigation. It was held that there was no violation of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the tape recording is admissible as evidence. The mere fact that evidence is obtained by illegal means is not admissible. It was also clarified that the tape-recorded statement is admissible after performing certain identifications: firstly, checking whether the tape-recorded statement is relevant to the subject matter; secondly, checking the genuineness of the voice; and thirdly, ensuring that there is no possibility of erasing the tape record.
Conclusion: -
To conclude here, this case deals with whether the tape-recorded conversation is admissible. After the judgment of the court, it was clarified that the tape-recorded statement was also admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The admissibility of the evidence depends upon the genuineness of the evidence. This case enlightens the norms of electronic evidence. Thus, the tape-recorded conversation is admissible.
References: -
· https://lawplanet.in/r-m-malkani-vs-state-of-maharashtra/