Mere Possibility of Tampering Is Not a Ground to Deny Forensic Examination – Madras High Court

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside a Special Court’s refusal to permit forensic analysis of crucial audio and video evidence in a corruption trial. Justice B. Pugalendhi held that speculative allegations of manipulation cannot replace scientific verification and directed that the defence be allowed to have the materials examined by a Government Forensic Laboratory. The Court also ordered the securing of a prosecution witness’s voice sample under judicial supervision, rejecting privacy-based objections.

The petitioner, C.J. Christopher Signi, formerly Electrical Inspector, Tirunelveli District, is facing trial under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹8,000 from an electrical contractor (PW-2) for issuing a safety certificate for a generator. A trap was laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing on 23 November 2018, leading to his arrest.

During the defence stage, a pen drive (Ex-D6) containing three voice recordings – including one from the day of the trap – and a video recording allegedly referring to the removal of CCTV footage by the investigating agency were produced. The defence sought forensic examination of these materials and the voice sample of PW-2 for comparison. The trial court dismissed the application, citing delay, non-examination of persons in the video, and the possibility of editing.

Relevance and Admissibility of Delayed Video Recording

The trial court had rejected the video evidence because it was recorded four years after the FIR. Justice Pugalendhi disagreed, holding:

“The fact that the video was recorded at a later point in time does not, by itself, render it inadmissible or irrelevant. If authentic, it may lend credence to the allegation of suppression of CCTV footage…”

Speculative Tampering vs. Expert Verification

The Special Court had noted DW-1’s admission that mobile software could edit recordings. The High Court held:

“The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis.”

The Court stressed that determining authenticity is the domain of forensic experts, not lay witnesses.

Compelling Voice Samples – Privacy vs. Fair Trial

The Government opposed taking PW-2’s voice sample, citing privacy and liberty concerns. The Court relied on Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. [(2019) AIR SC 3592] and Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to affirm a Magistrate’s power to order voice samples. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy and Gobind, it reiterated that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be curtailed for compelling public interest:

“Refusal to call for the voice sample… cannot be justified merely on the plea of privacy, especially when the sample is sought under judicial supervision and for the limited purpose of expert analysis in a pending trial.”

Finding non-application of mind by the Special Court, the High Court allowed the revision and directed:

• Forensic examination of Ex-D6 and the video recording by a competent Government Forensic Laboratory within a fixed time limit.

• Securing of PW-2’s voice sample through due process for expert comparison.

• Expeditious trial completion given the case’s pendency since 2020.

The judgment reinforces the principle that an accused’s right to a fair trial includes access to scientific testing of evidence forming part of the defence. It clarifies that speculative doubts about tampering cannot override the need for expert verification, and privacy concerns must yield to legitimate judicial purposes in the interest of justice.

Date of Decision: 9 July 2025