YUSUFALLI ESMAIL NAGREE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 19-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

YUSUFALLI ESMAIL NAGREE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
April 19, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, R. S. BACHAWAT 
AND C. A. VAIDiALINGAM, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) ss. 7 ·and 8-Tape re• 
cording-Value-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Act 5 of 1898) 
s. 162-Talk recorded on tape in seclusion with police decoy,-Pollce 
Officer in another room-If statement made to the police. 
Constitution of India, Art. 20(3)-Police laid 
trap-Person makes 
incriminating statement not knowing the trap-If protected, 
On report of S, that the appellant had offered a bribe to him, which 
S did not accept, the Police laid' a· trap. S called the appellant at his 
residence and in the room where they alone were present, the appellant 
handed over the bribe to S. 
In the room a microphone of a tape re· 
corder was concealed and their conversation recorded. The Poliee offi· 
cers and the radio mechanic kept concealed in another room. S was 
tho only eye-witness to the offer of the bribe and the tape was kept in 
the custody of the police inspector but was not sealed. The appellant 
was convicted under s. 165A I.P.C., which the High Court upheld. In 
appeal, this Court :-
HELD : The conviction must be upheld. 
The contemporaneous dialogue bet.ween the appellant and S formed 
part of the res gestae and is relevant and admissible under s. 8 of the 
Indian Evidence Act. The dialogue is proved by S. 
The tape record 
of the dialogue corroborates his testimony. The process of tape record· 
ing offers an accurate method of storing and later reproducing sounds. 
The imprint on the magnetic. tape is the direct effect of the relevant 
sounds. Like a photograph of a relevant incident, a cont.:mporaneous 
tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible 
under s. 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. The time and place and accuracy 
of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices 
must be properly identified. One of. the features of magnetic tape re-
cording is the ability to erase and re-use the recording medium. Because 
of this facility of erasure and re-use, the evidence must be received with 
caution. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the 
record has not been tampered with. [723 H-724 B, DJ 
Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad and Anr. A.I.R. 1956 Punj. 173; 
Mahindra Nath v. Biswanath Kundu, 61 C.W.N. 191; approved. 
S. Pratap Singh v. The Slate of Punjab,', (1964] 4 S.C.R, 733 
and 
R. v. Maqs11d Ali, [1965] 2 All E.R. 464; .followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
There. was other evidence showing 
thRt · the tape recording w~s not 
tamp~red with. The fact that the defence did not sugant any tamper· 
H 
in~ lends assurance to the credibility of the other evidence. The courts 
below rightly held that the tape recorder faithfully recorded and repro· 
duced the actual conversation. The use of the stateme11ts of both S and 
the appellant when the trap was laid. was not barred by s, 162 of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
G 
H 
YUSUFALLI v. MAHARASHTRA (Bachawat, J.) 
72 L 
Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was not making a state· 
ment to the sub-inspector of police or to any other police officer. He was 
not even aware that any police officer was listening to him. He was talk-
ing to S. 
No doubt S was a police decoy assisting the police in their 
investigation, but the statement of the appellant to S while making an-
other offer of a bribe cannot be regarded as a statement ·by him to the 
police. Nor can the words uttered by S be regarded as a statement to· 
the police. 
S was talking to the appellant. He knew that what he said 
was being recorded for subsequent use by the police officers. But he 
was not speaking to any police officer. There was a dialogue in which 
S and the appellant took part, Each spoke to the other. but neither made· 
a statement to a police officer. [724 H; 725 D·FJ 
Ramkisha11 Mitlzan/al Sharma v. 
The State of Bombay, 
[1955) I 
S.C.R. 903, 922-23; referred to. 
· 
The appellant was not right in claiming protection under Art. 20(3) 
of·the Constitution against the use of the statement made by him on the 
ground that by the active deception of the police, he was compelled to 
be a . witness against himself. The appellant was not compelled to be a 
witness against himself. He was free to talk or not to talk. His con-
versation with S was voluntary. 
There was no element of duress, coer4 
cion or compulsion. His statements were not extracted from him in an 
oppressiv

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