Y.E. Nagree v. State of Maharashtra
A contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation formed part of the res gestae and is relevant and admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with, the evidence must be received with caution.
G.V. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue, but in this case there was appreciable interval between the acts of the miscreants and the recording of the statements by judicial magistrate of the victims. The interval, therefore, blocks the statement from acquiring legitimacy under section 6 of the Act.
R.M. Sharma v. State of Bombay
The physical fact of identification has no separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very process of identification and in so far as a police officer seeks to prove the fact of such identification such evidence of his would be inadmissible in evidence. The only exception being the evidence sought to be given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of identification which he would be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial. The Court is satisfied that even excluding the evidence of the test identification parade in regard to him the balance of evidence remaining on record is enough to maintain his conviction
Daya Singh vs. State of Haryana
In the present case, there is no lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer holding the test identification parade. Where evidence is cogent, consistent and without any motive, it is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibilities with regard to the state of mind of the witnesses. The identification by the witnesses effected in the result that the physical features of accused must have been embedded in the memory of the witness and the evidence and the cross-examination of the witnesses, it is apparent that they gained enduring impression of the identity of the accused during the incident. Power of perception and memorizing differs from man to man and also depends upon the situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier.