1968 CRI. L. J. 103 ::1968 AllCriR 174 ::1968 MadLJ(Cri) 247 ::66 ITR 367 ::1968 M P L J 114 ::1968 (1) SCJ 131 ::(1968) 1 S C J 511 ::(1967) 3 S C R 720 ::1967 3 SCR 322 ::70 Bom L R 76 ::(1967) 2 S C W R 934 ::1967 2 ITJ 794 ::1968 S C D 347

Supreme Court Of India

(From Bombay : AIR 1965 Bom 3)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Hidayatullah, R. S. Bachawat, C. A. Vaidialingam , JJJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.6, S.8, S.7— Offence u/S.165A Penal Code - Trap laid - Conversation between accused and complainant tape-recorded - Amount handed over to complainant - Voices of complainant and accused identified - Contemporaneous dialogue between them held @page-CriLJ104formed part of res gestae and was relevant u/S.8 - Further, like a photograph of a relevant incident a contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation was admissible u/S.7. Case law relied. (Para 5) (B) Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.162— Offence u/S.165A Penal Code - Trap laid - Use of tape-recorder to record conversation between accused and complainant - Mike kept concealed in outer room and tape recorder kept in inner room - Police Officer also in inner room - Accused not aware of police officer or that his conversation was being tape recorded - Conversation held was not hit by S.162 and was admissible. AIR 1965 Bom 3, Affirmed.AIR 1955 SC 104, Distinguished. (Para 8) (C) Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.367, S.342— Answers of accused u/S.342 - Court cannot accept the inculpatory part and reject the exculpatory part of the answers. ....