When Courts can rely on TAPE RECORDED on mobile as Evidence in Court- some hints

Almost every mobile phone has voice recording functions. Technology has armed us with weapons of Voice Recording and Video Recording.


But can court convict someone by relying on such recorded evidence?


There are cases and cases where courts have convicted criminals on basis of tape recording.


Court usually wants to know following things before relying on such evidence.


1) Was recording done under controlled conditions? Has anyone come in witness box to say that he himself has recorded or that he was a witness to recording?


2) Are the content of recording same as they were when it was recorded? Is there any possibility that the recording could have been tempered with or doctored with after it was recorded?


3) Has any one come in witness box to say that "After recording was made, recording was kept in his safe custody till it was produced in court" ?


If Court satisfies, it can rely on recording.


(Some mobile phone may have "Non editable Recording Software". If there is such an application, court can rely on it without any hesitation.)


Haresh Raichura

28/8/2012

'Ek tha Tiger and Ek thi Cow" - A story to explain why people file false cases.

Once upon a time in India there was rule of law. All citizens and animals were law abiding.


One day a cow crossed path of a Tiger. The Cow said to Tiger, "Hi, Good Morning".


The tiger gave no reply. He went straight to police station and gave complaint that The Cow has assaulted on him with her horns.


Police called the cow to police station but took no action against Cow for one month.


Tiger went to Court, engaged a lawyer and filed complaint against cow. The Magistrate recorded statement of Tiger on oath. Two more tigers came as witnesses who claimed to have seen the incident. They gave statements in support of tiger.


Magistrate issued non bailable warrant against Cow.


Cow engaged a lawyer and filed Sec. 482 petition in High Court to quash the complaint as abuse of criminal law.


High Court dismissed petition of Cow. High Court asked cow to appear before trial court and to prove her innocence in trial.

The Cow went to appeal in Supreme Court under Art.136. There also her petition was dismissed by Supreme Court. Supreme Court gave same advice to cow.


The Cow appeared before Magistrate and obtained bail pending trial.


Then case was adjourned many times for three years. On each day Cow had to come to court. She was always very frightened because in Courts she saw that lots of tigers and criminals were crowding around her.


One day she agreed to pay few lakhs rupees to Tiger. Tiger agreed and case was withdrawn.


The Cow become free for a price.


MORALS OF STORY


1) Most of the evidence in Indian courts are words of mouth. Witnesses and complainants can easily tell lies in court.


2) Courts have power to punish those who tell lies in court. But for many reasons they cannot do so.


3) The Cow should not have said 'Good Morning' to Tiger.


4) Aggression is best defense.


The cow should have also immediately filed (1) Complaint for malicious prosecution against Tiger and Two other tigers who gave false statement in Court. (2) Cow should also have filed Civil Suit for damages against three tigers. Then all three cases would have proceeded in Court side by side.


Warning: Do not treat this story as advice. Consult your advocate for correct advice.


IN MY VIEW, 40% Criminal Cases in courts in India are cases where, The Tigers have filed false cases against Cows. (Shocking Truth)


If you think that this story can help people to fight better against false cases, please tweet this to spread awareness.


Haresh Raichura


23/8/2012

Why some judgements of Supreme Court and High Courts confuse me- A brief view

I have utmost respect to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts. But I am also of firm view that we should criticize and give feedback to judges about their judgements.

Some judgements confuse me.

What is argued is different, and what is being decided is different.

Sometimes I feel that real issues are sidestepped.

Judges are more knowledgeable than me and are more experienced than me. They must be doing right thing.

In Courts, normally, a point is raised by one advocate, it is denied or explained by other side advocate, and then judge decides THAT issue.

However, in one judgement, a very senior judge wrote like this:

1. Petitioner's advocate argued point A,B and C.

2. Respondent's advocate contended point E,F and G. (Pause here and understand mistake. Respondent's advocate has to reply to A,B and C points raised by petitioner's advocate. But he does not reply A,B or C. Instead he spills out his own different issues E,F and G)

3. After recording arguments of both sides, Judge says, "The Following Points H and I are arising for our consideration."

And Then he answers and decides points H and I which were never argued by any advocate!

There may be some very good reasons why some judges are doing like this. Sometimes pleadings are vague. Sometimes arguments by advocates are vague. Then a judge has to cull out issue from the real controversy.

But for my parts, I always become confused by reading such judgements.

Sometimes I feel that A, B and C were the REAL ISSUES which have been sidestepped by judges and judgement is weak on issues A, B and C.

If you also think that this point needs to be replied or addressed by some eminent judges or more experienced lawyers, please TWEET this post on social media for more awareness.

Haresh Raichura
21/8/2012

Why Dr. Swamy's legal fight against use of EVM machines in Elections is 100% justified?

The more and more people are convinced that Electronic Voting Machines are "Calculators which can be manipulated by computer softwares".

For example a Chip can be inserted that "Party A" should get +1 more vote than "Party B" no matter what may be the actual voting.


These are called "Overwriting Commands". Computers are computers. They can be programmed and re-programmed.

Ruling Party and Election Commission of India disregards truth and insist on use of EVM machines in Elections.

What can we do about it?


Dr. Swamy has filed petitions in Superior Courts and has demonstrated how these computers can be manipulated and how it can be pre-programmed to make sure victory to one candidate during election. The EVM machines have killed Democracy and have all the potentials to do so.

What is LAW here?

Possibility of MISUSE is no ground for courts to prohibit Government and EC from using EVMs


This is law. Court can issue prohibitory directions only if we can show to courts that:


A) Something is being done in violation of certain express law.


B) People and Other Election Cadidates have some Constitutional Rights which are being violated by use of EVM machines.


C) The Courts have to be further convinced that they have jurisdiction to pass orders which are being asked, and it is practicable and desirable to issue such prohibitory orders.


D) The Courts have to be further convinced that it is DUTY of Court to uphold Constitution by passing such required prohibitory orders.


Following are some of the answers to A to D points.


1) It is Duty of Court to protect Basic Structure of Constitution. If Fair Elections are replaced with Manipulatable Elections, the Basic Structure of Constitution is DESTROYED. So it is Duty of Court to ban EVM machines. The Superior Courts of Most democratic countries have already banned such use.


2) People have right under Art 21 to live a life of Dignity. You cannot live a life of Dignity without free and fair elections.


3) Election Commission is a Govt body and hence if it acts arbitrarily it violates Art.14.


If Election Commission does not ADMIT that machines are capable of manipulation, it acts arbitrarily and its Decision Process is vitiated. The Decision is Liable to be struck down on ground that the important components are kept out from decision making process.


The Court can strike down such arbitrary policy and decisions of EC.

EC must first of all ADMIT that EVMs can be manipulated... Only thereafter it should further satisfy courts about what steps are taken by it to prevent manipulations.


4) New Machines are ordered by EC, where a paper slip will come out with EVM voting which will be then deposited in a box. This is being done to meet an argument in court that in present machines, voters only see a red light and are not able to see to whom his vote has gone. When this new paper slip will machine will come, a voter will get a slip. But if he is allowed to walk away with slip, he can sell slip for Rs. 1000/-. So slip will be taken away from him before he leaves polling booth!


What is the use? Paper Slip will show that voter has casted vote for "Party A", but calculator software will add vote to "Party B"!


The Computers are programmable. No use for such meaningless paper slips.


5)Apart from Rights of People, there are Rights of Other Contesting Candidates to be considered. Where will they appeal for a re-count? How can it be done on same manipulated EVM machines?


CONCLUSION


Original method of ballot paper voting and counting in presence of representatives of Candidates, is still the best method as recognized by US, UK, Germany etc countries.

Will our Courts take call and ban EVM machines which are already banned in other countries?


We have to see. Laws of other countries not applicable to India.


Our courts and our democracy are passing through a process.


I hope Dr. Swamy and his supporters succeed in their efforts to liberate country from Manipulative EVM machines.


Haresh Raichura

20/8/2012

How Governments SPY on Judges. - A method.

I have no evidence to say that any Government is employing any persons to spy on judges of High Court and Supreme Court Judges.


But Once it was in news that a sitting judge of Delhi High Court said that he was apprehending that CBI was taping his phone.


Then in about 2003, in one High Court, I met few so called "Law Officers".


They said that they were not assigned to report on any particular case. Their job was to sit in different courts and to listen to what judges were saying about government, while dealing with cases against Govt.


At 5.00 PM daily, their job was to brief Chief Secretary about "which judge said what about Government".


This looked scary.


It looked like "official spying" on judges of High Court to me.


To my mind, Judiciary is losing it's Independence slowly slowly.


It is only they, who can protect themselves. We can only pray for them.


They are the last strong pillar of our Democracy. They should be able to judge cases without fear of "being reported to Chief Executive of Government", at 5:00 PM daily....


Haresh Raichura

19/8/2012