(i) Appellants shall be required to read out for the purpose of giving their voice samples using words, but not the sentences, appearing in the disputed conversation.
(ii) The text which is to be read by the appellants in the course of drawing their voice samples should contain no part of the inculpatory words which are a part of the disputed conversation—A commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination.
(iii) Permitting the text to contain words drawn from the disputed conversation would meet the legitimate concern of the investigating authorities for making a fair comparison–Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21-Evidence Act, 1872.
Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. Etc. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
2016(4} Law Herald (P&H) 2998 (SC) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1583