Speaker Identification (Use of speaker to identified criminal). This ppt contains criminal case in which voice analysis is used to identify criminal.

1. SPEKAR IDENTIFICATION
 The strength and shape of the transuded audio wave form
bears a direct relationship with original sound wave.
 In digital recording ,the transuded wave form is translated
into binary number code ,which us by computer.
BY: LAD MATANGI C.
M.Sc Forensic Science

2. WHAT IS VOICE?
 Voice is the sound in a person’s larynx and uttered through the mouth , as
speech or song.
 Voice analysis use in forensic investigation from since 1960 and relies on
the fact that each person’s voice has a unique quality that can be recorded
as voiceprint, on instrument called spectrograph.
 Voice results from an expiratory energy used to generate noises or to move
the vocal cords which generate voice sound.
 Speech production is composed of two basic mechanical functions :
Phonation and Articulation.
 PHONATION: Phonation is the production of an acoustic signal.
 ARTICULATION: It include modulation of the acoustic signal by the
articulators. [lips ,tongue, soft palate & its resonance in the supraglotic
cavities, oral or nasal]

3.  COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE
 The evidence dose not consist of speech it self ,but of a transposition
obtained by a transducer ,that converts acoustic energy into another from of
energy :mechanical , electrical or magnetic.
 This transposition is recorded on a storage medium on which it coded by an
analog or digital information coding method.
 The strength and shape of the transuded audio wave form bears a direct
relationship with original sound wave.
 In digital recording ,the transuded wave form is translated into binary
number code ,which us by computer.

4. COLLECTION OF CONTROL RECORDING
 It should be recorded in similar condition to the disputed utterance &
should be as representative as possible of the speaker.
SPEAKER RECOGNIZATION
 Speaker reorganization refers to any process that uses some features of the
speech signal to determine if a particular person is speaker of given
utterance.

5.  There were three method of speaker recognition as follow:
1.] Speaker Recognition by Listening (SRL)
2.] Speaker Recognition by Visual comparison
3.] Automatic Speaker Recognition(ASR)
 Speaker recognition procedure is more likely to be engaged when close
auditory similarities exist between evidence & the control recording or
when voice disguise is suspected.
 Engaged recognition process consist of 3 stages :
1.] Feature extraction
2.] Feature Comparison
3.] Classification

6. YUSUFALI ESMAIL NAGREE VS. THE STATE OF
MAHARSHTRA
 WHAT : This was the case about Yusufali Esmail Nagree VS. The State of
Maharashtra. In this case the appellant Yusufali Esmail Nagree challenges
the legality of his conviction under section-165A of Indian Penal Court.
 His wife Rukhanbai was the owner of two house properties in ‘F’ ward of
Bombay Municipal Corporation. The buildings were in a ruinous condition
and she was served with notice of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
requiring her to repair and secure them.
 The notices were not complied and prosecution under section- 471 of act
was started against her in the Presidency Magistrate’s court . The summon
was issued but she unable to appear in the court so a bail able warrant for
her arrest was issued.

7.  One clerk name Munir Ahmed Shaikh, of ‘F’ ward building department of
Bombay Municipal Corporation .He was entrusted with the duty of serving
the warrant. The appellant try to offered him sum of Rs.25 and 100 as a
bribe to not executing the warrant.
 Shaikh complained about this to his senior and they complained to anti
corruption bureau .The investigation officer made trap to caught him and
they fixed meeting of the appellant and Shaikh at his house.
 They fixed the microphone behind the books in the room and recorded the
conversation of them.
 The voice analysis was carried out by forensic department and the appellant
found guilty .Bombay court sentenced him 18 months jail and fine of
Rs.500 as default. After they changed into 6 month jail.

8.  After the judgment he appalled in High court they sentenced him one year
jail and Rs.250 fine.
 But the counsel pleaded for reduction for the sentence because the
appellant was 60year old. When he was in jail he suffered from cardiac
troubles so he was shifted to hospital after that he again send to jail .
 Due to health issue the court again changed the judgment and sentenced
him six month jail. The court dismissed the case.

9.  WHEN: It happened on 18th July, 1960 on that day the petitioner tried to
offer bribe to Shaikh. On 2nd August 1960 the appellant came to Shaikh’s
house to offer him bribe for not to issue the summons. On that he was
caught by Anti Corruption Bureau. They recorded conversation between
appellant and Shaikh by placing microphone and recorded in tape recorder.
 WHERE: First time he tried to offer the bribe on 1st July 1960. After that on
18th July 1960 he offered him Rs.25 at Municipal Corporation. But he
refused so on 2nd August he again offered him sum of Rs. 100 to not to
execute the notice. Shaikh complained it in anti corruption bureau on the
same day appellant caught on Shaikh when he offering the bribe.

10.  EVIDENCE: The main evidence in this case was the tape recorder. Under
section-7 of Indian Evidence Act the tape recorder was admissible in court.
 When the appellant came to Shaikh’s house & offered him bribe he was
caught by anti corruption bureau. They kept the microphone behind books
and recorded the interaction between appellant and Shaikh.
 The voice of tape recording and original voice was matched by forensic
experts. And in court it was proved that the appellant offered the bribe.
 The motive of this offering of bribe was prevent the issue of notice by
Bombay Municipal Corporation. The appellant compiled the notice so
summon was issued to her were served by affixation. On her failure to
appear in the court a bail able warrant for her was issued. To stop this
appellant offered bribe to Shaikh.

11.  LEGAL OUTCOME: In this case appellant challenges the legality of his
conviction under section-165Aof IPC.
 The judge of Bombay Court found the appellant was guilty of the offence
under section-165A of IPC and sentenced him simple 18 months jail & fine
of Rs.500.
 They changed to imprisonment for six months with the recommendation
that they should be treated as class 1 prisoner.
 He again appealed High Court but they convicted him under section-165A
of IPC. Sentenced him imprisonment for one year & fine of Rs. 250.
 After some time the counsel pleaded for reduction for the sentence because
he was of 60 years old and suffered from cardiac troubles so he shifted to
hospital on 29th July 1963.
 He remained in jail until 12th December 1963. Due to his health issue court
changed the judgment and sentenced him six months jail. After that they
dismissed case.

12.  REFLECTION: In India the voice recording was not considered as
admissible evidence by the court. In this case, forensic analysis of the voice
record resulted in speaker identification and gained the admissibility of
court under section-7 of Indian Evidence Act. This case revealed the
potential of voice record to be used as crucial evidence in future
investigations.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY: https://indiankanoon.org
https://Jajharkhand.in
https://www.casemine.com