Speak to Type: A Complete Guide to Using Voice Typing in Google Docs

 Writing doesn't always require a keyboard. Google Docs includes a powerful, built-in feature called Voice typing that transforms your spoken words into written text in real time. Whether you want to draft an essay hands-free, speed up your writing process, or improve accessibility, this guide will walk you through setting up and mastering speech-to-text in Google Docs.

System Requirements & Setup

Before you begin, ensure you have a working microphone (either built-in or external) and a stable internet connection.

·       Desktop Compatibility: Voice typing is fully supported on desktop browsers including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Apple Safari.

·       Mobile Availability: The feature is available on both Android and iOS devices through your smartphone's default keyboard microphone.

Step-by-Step: Using Voice Typing on Desktop

Print Page

Supreme Court: Testimony For Sexual Offence Within Home Does Not Require Same Corroboration As Crimes Committed In Open

The third principle concerns the appreciation of

evidence in cases of sexual offences and of crimes

committed within the privacy of the home. Offences

of this nature are seldom committed in the presence

of witnesses. The sexual abuse of a child within the

household, in particular, is perpetrated in secrecy

and in stealth, and the persons ordinarily present are

the perpetrator, the child and, if at all, a member of

the household who is powerless to prevent it. To

insist, in such cases, upon the kind of corroboration

that might be available in a crime committed in the

open would be to insist upon a standard that the very

nature of the offence renders impossible of

attainment, and would be to grant to those who prey

upon children within the home an immunity founded

upon the secrecy in which they cloak their crime. {Para 31}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 429-430/2020

WARIS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1050.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Statement Of Accused U/S S. 313 of CrPC cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances

 On an overall consideration of all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, we find that the evidence led by the prosecution is woefully short of pointing to the guilt of the appellant. The witnesses examined were not sure as to whether the appellant was last seen with the victim as they had their own doubts in that regard. The discovery effected under Section 27 of the Act of 1872 was from a place that was ordinarily visible to others, thus, requiring such discovery to be considered with caution. The DNA report in clear terms refers to the bone extracts being of male origin while the victim was a female. The said bones naturally did not match with the blood samples of the victim’s mother and sister. The report from the FSL also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. There is a doubt created as to whether the brown shawl claimed by the prosecution to be brought by the appellant from his mother was the same as the appellant’s mother had denied that it belonged to her. Therefore, the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code cannot be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In other words, the chain of circumstances has not been formed on the basis of the prosecution evidence. The Sessions Court, in our view, failed to notice these material factors that were very much available on record. It, therefore, erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence.  {Para 10}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2018

SANTOSH GURUNG Vs STATE OF SIKKIM 

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1073.

Print Page

Instagram Chats Alone Cannot Prove ‘Living In Adultery’: Allahabad High Court In Maintenance Case

 In the present case, the sole foundation of the revisionist's claim of adultery is digital evidence in the form of Instagram chats. This brings the Court to the crucial aspect of the admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic records. {Para 12}

13. It is a settled proposition of law that the admissibility of electronic evidence must be tested strictly at the anvil of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the landmark decision of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC, a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the mandatory nature of this statutory requirement.

14. It was further reiterated in the said judgment, following the ratio in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer 2014 (10) SCC 473, that the statutory certificate is a mandatory condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of an electronic record. Secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible only if led in the strict manner stated in the statute, and not otherwise.

15. The necessity for such strict verification stems from the inherent vulnerabilities of digital data. As observed by the Apex Court in various pronouncements dealing with electronic evidence and private investigations, there is an ever-present danger regarding the authenticity of such material.

16. Applying these settled legal principles to the facts at hand, it is evident that the Instagram chats produced by the revisionist are not supported by the mandatory statutory certification. In the absence of such a certificate, it would be entirely incorrect in law to treat this electronic evidence as admissible.

17. Even if, for the sake of argument, the contents of the unverified chats were to be perused, mere text messages on a social media platform, without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, are thoroughly insufficient to legally establish that the wife is continuously "living in adultery". The burden lies heavily upon the revisionist to prove a continuous adulterous lifestyle, which he has failed to discharge.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7800 of 2025

Court No. - 85

HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Dated: September 29, 2026.

Print Page