The case involving former minister, Raj Dayal raises an important legal point. If a soundtrack was sent for the investigation by the accuser, what weight has such an evidence in a trial in a court of justice?
Me Doorgesh Ramsewak, Queen’s Counsel and former DPP believes that unbeknownst audio recordings of a person “shall not be admissible in court.” “By itself, said the lawyer, an audio recording of a conversation made without the knowledge of a person can not constitute sufficient proof. It must be independent evidence to support the accusation in court. There are strict conditions to be met before they can admit such evidence in court.
This is equivalent to another evidence that will be needed and there are rules to follow. “He adds that technology now allows to easily mount a soundtrack with the voice of a person. “We must not reach a situation where all kinds of audio recordings is accepted. It will be a real danger and the public will find itself in a situation where he will be afraid to speak,” says Mr. Doorgesh Ramsewak.
Me Said Toorbuth is of a different opinion. “Audio recordings are admissible in court under preconditions.” The first criterion to be satisfied is that the record presented in court must be original. However, once the registration deemed admissible, the voice on the soundtrack has to be identified. And if the offending person disputes, additional evidence needs to be provided, the lawyer added.
Like us on Facebook for latest updates – Viral Google News