SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY ETC. versus SURI V. V. GIRI

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 27-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
, E 
F 
G 
H 
SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY ETC. 
v. 
SURI V. V. GIRi 
April 27, 1970 
399 
[S. M. SIKRI, J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MITTER 
AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] 
Evidence Act (I of 1872), ss. 146(1), 153, Exception (2) and 153 
(3)-Tape-recorded statement of witness-Whether admissible to con-
tradict his Evidence in Court. 
The petitioners filed an election petition under the Presidential and 
Vice Presidential Election Act, 1952 and according to them undue influ-
ence was exercised by the publication and 
distribution of certain pam-
phlets containing scurrilou~ attacks on the defeated, presidential candidate. 
The name of persons who were alleged to have distributed the pamphlets 
were mentioned in the particulars supplied in the election petition, When 
one of them was in the witness-box as a witness for the returned candi· 
date, he denied in his chief-examina:ion that he distributed the pamphlets. 
When it was suggested to him in cross-examination that he attempted to 
dissuade one of the petitioners from filing the election petition as otherwise 
serious consequences would follow, the witness denied the suggestion. A 
tape recorded conversation between the witness and the petitioners was 
sought to be given in evidence by playing the tape-record to impeach tlie 
credit of the witness. 
On ·the· question of the admissib'lity of the evidence, 
HELD : ( 1) A previous ;statement made by a person and ·recorded 
on tape, can· be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the 
witness in court but also to contradict his evidence given before the Court, 
as well as to test the veracity of the witness and also to impeach his 
impartiality. Apart from being used for corroboration, the evidence is 
admissible in respect of the other three matters under ss. 146(1), 153, 
Exception (2) ands. 155(3) of the Evidence Act. If a previous statement 
made by a person can be used to corroborate his evidence given before 
court, on princip1e, there is no reason why such previous statement can-
not be used to contradict under s. 153, Exception 2 and also for the other 
purposes un~.or ss. 146(1) and 155(3). [410 B-C, D-E] 
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab. [1964] 4 S.C.R. 733, Yusufjalli v .. 
Maharashtra State. [1967] 3 S.C.R. 720 and R. v. Maqsud Ali [1965] 2 
All. E. R. 464, re'ferred to. 
Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad, A.LR. 1956 Punj. 173 and Manindra 
NaJh v. Biswana~h. 61 C.W.N. 191, approved. 
· 
(2) The expression 'which is liable. to be contradicted" in s. 155(3) 
does not mean 'which is relevant to the issue'. The observation eontra in 
Khadijah Khanum v. Abdool Ku,.reem Sheraji, 189() J.L.R. 17 Cal. 344 
is too broadly stated. But even if it mean 'relevant to the issue' the tape. 
recorded statement in the present case, is relevant to the issue befpre this 
Court, namely, 'whether the respondent, or any person with his connivance, 
printed, published and distributed the pamphlets." [411 B-C, El 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] I S.C.R. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Election Petitions Nos. 4 and 5 of 
1969. 
Election Petitions in Admissibility in Evidence 
of Tape 
Recorded Conversation. 
K. C. Sharma, K. I. Rathee, M. S. Gupta, C. L. Lakhanpa/ 
and S. K. Dhingra, for the petitioners (in E.P. No. 4 of 1969). 
S. c. Malik, M. S. Gupta and K. L. Rathee, for the petitioners 
(in E.P. No. 5 of 1969). 
C. K. Daphtary, D. Narasaraju, S. Mohan Kumaramanga/am. 
S. T. Desai, S. K. Dholakia, J. B. Dadachanji', Ravinder Narain 
and 0. C. Mathur, for the respondent {in both the petitions). 
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, L. M. Singhvi and K. P. K. 
Nayer, for the 
At~rney-General, Election Commission 
and 
Retu~ning Officer, Presidential Election. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J, On April 1, 1970 Shri Jagat Narain (R.W. 
25) was being cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioners 
in Election Petition No. 5 of 1969, when certain suggestions were 
put to him that he had tried to dissuade the first petitioner in the 
said Election Petition, viz., Shri Abdul Gilani Dhar from 
filing 
the election petition on political reasons and when the witness 
denied not only those suggestions but also certain other sugges-
tions put to him, counsel for the petitioner represented that Shri 
Abdul Ghani Dar had a tape recording of the talk that took place 
between him and the witness and he sought permission from the 
Court to play the same for being put to the witness. 
Objection 
was rais

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.