D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE informant in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1989, which is pending in the Court of the Second Addi. Sessions Judge, Cuttack filed this revision petition assailing the order dated 5. 3. 1990 by which the trial Court rejected the prayer of the prosecution to playa video cassette in Court. ( 2 ) IN the aforementioned criminal case the opposite parties 1 to 5 are being tried for the charges under section 302, I. P. C. and certain other offences. A number of witnesses have been examined in the case including Jayagopal Parija (P. W. 22) who recorded the videocassette (M. O. IV) on the requisition of the Investigating Officer. As evident from his deposition he recorded the statements of the accused persons during certain post occurrence incidents at different places as required by the Investigating Officer. During the trial of the case prosecution wan led to cassette to be played in Court, probably with a view to record in evidence the statements allegedly made by the accused. The prayer was turned down by the learned trial Judge mainly on the ground that the statements said to have been recorded in the cassette are in the nature of confessional statements made to a police officer and therefore hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. ( 3 ) THAT a tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence is no longer in doubt. The Apex Court in the case of R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra,1 ruled that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided that the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue, that there is identification of the voice and that the accuracy of the conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act; it is res gestae; it is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and the conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Evidence Act. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act; it is res gestae; it is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and the conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Evidence Act. When a Court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and genuine; the fact that tape recorded conversation can be altered is also to be borne in mind by the Court while admitting it in evidence. Similar view had been taken earlier by the Court in the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab,2 and in the case of Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Ma ha ra s htra. ( 4 ) THE question therefore is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the statements of the accused persons recorded in the videocassette can be accepted as evidence, particularly in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 25 provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a persons accused of any offence. Section 26 makes a slight departure and provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 which is in the nature of an exception to sections 25 and 26, provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of police officer so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The obvious intention behind section 25 was to deter the police from extorting confessions, by rendering such confessions absolutely inadmissible. The police arc suspect and often extort confessions by inducement, undue influence, torture and oppression and it is with a view to prevent the abuse of their power that sections 25 and 26 have been enacted. The section applies to confession made to any police officer. The police arc suspect and often extort confessions by inducement, undue influence, torture and oppression and it is with a view to prevent the abuse of their power that sections 25 and 26 have been enacted. The section applies to confession made to any police officer. A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible not only against the person making it but is also inadmissible against the other accused. The ground of exclusion in the section is not irrelevancy, but with a view to protect persons charged with crimes from being exposed to ill-treatment by the police who in their zeal to procure a conviction would be tempted to endeavor to extort a confession. The section excludes a confession to the police, but not any other matter unconnected with the confession e. g. , a statement by the accused of his presence at the scene of occurrence or the ill-will that existed against the deceased etc. ( 5 ) ANOTHER provision which is relevant in this connection is section 162, Cr. P. c. which reads as follows: S. 162. Statements to police not to be signed Use of statements in evidence: (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making -it, nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 ofihe Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. Explanation:- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in subsection (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. The section lays down limitations regarding use of a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation. Such a statement, even if it is reduced into writing is not required to be signed by the person making it, nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement on record, be used for any purpose except by the accused and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and when any part of such statement is so used, any part there of may also be used in the reexamination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. ( 6 ) P. W. 22 Jayagopal Parija was working as Inspector of Photography, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh at the material time. It appears from his deposition that on the requisition of the Superintendent of Police, C. LD. Crime Branch over telephone on 8. 2. 1989 he proceeded to Mahanga along with video instruments for assisting the Investigating Officer of the case; on 8. 2. 1989 and 9. 2. 1989 he took video recordings of the versions of the accused persons to the questions put by the Investigating Officer in presence of two witnesses; the recording was done in presence of the Investigating Officer and two witnesses; after recording he made over the cassette (M. O. IV) to the Investigating Officer who seized the same under seizure list, Ext. 35. 35. The witness further stated that when the cassette recording was in progress about 200 villagers had gathered and they can also be seen in the video; the witness was not ready to play the recorded video cassette since he had not brought the V. C. R. to the Court. In cross-examination the witness stated that he did not know the accused persons before recording the video cassette; he had also not known the accused persons whose statements were recorded in the video; he was not acquainted with the voice of the accused persons whose statements were recorded; the Investigating Officer told him (witness) that the persons concerned were the accused persons involved in the case; the witness did not remember as to which questions were put by the Investigating Officer to the accused and what answers were given by the latter during the video recording. The witness had also not visited at any time before the three places at which the recordings were made; the places were selected by the Investigating Officer; on the first day video recording was made at two places; in the quarters situated behind the police station, five accused persons took part in the video recording and then on the side of a canal two accused persons took part in the video recording and the third place of recording was near a well in the village and one accused took part in it ( 7 ) NO other evidence about video recording is brought to my notice. From the evidence of P. W. 22, it is clear that he had no personal knowledge about the accused persons; the places of recording; the statements made by the accused persons and their relevance to the case. The witness could not identify the voice of the concerned accused persons. The whole exercise appears to have been guided and controlled by the Investigating Officer. There was therefore no evidence before the Court on which he could permit playing of the recorded videocassette. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in refusing to accept the recorded videocassette as admissible in evidence in the case. ( 8 ) IN the result the revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Revision dismissed.