The Supreme Court ruled that magistrates can legally order voice samples under the old CrPC, clarifying that providing such samples does not amount to self-incrimination, reinforcing investigative powers while protecting individual rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment delivered by CJI B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has clarified that a Judicial Magistrate has the authority to direct a person to provide a voice sample for criminal investigations, even under the older Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which did not explicitly mention such a power. The Court set aside a High Court order that had quashed a Magistrate’s direction, emphasizing the binding precedent established in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019).
Background of the Case
The case arose during investigations into the death of a 25-year-old married woman on February 16, 2021. Allegations of harassment at her matrimonial home led to complaints from multiple parties, including claims of misappropriation of cash and jewelry.
During the investigation, it came to light that the second respondent (allegedly acting for the deceased’s father) had threatened a witness. This witness claimed knowledge of an extortion demand made by the deceased’s father. To verify these allegations, the Investigating Officer requested a voice sample from the second respondent for comparison with recorded evidence.
The Magistrate ordered the collection of the voice sample, but the second respondent challenged the order before the High Court, which quashed it, citing a pending reference to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the second respondent:
Counsel argued that the old Cr.P.C. did not empower a Magistrate to direct a voice sample and raised Article 20(3) concerns about self-incrimination. They noted that the new Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, explicitly grants this power under Section 349, but the old Cr.P.C. did not.
For the appellant (investigation agency):
Senior Counsel argued that the Larger Bench reference cited by the High Court was closed, and the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court erred in not following binding precedent. The key points of the judgment are:
- Ritesh Sinha Precedent:
- A Magistrate can order any person, not just an accused, to provide a voice sample.
- The act of giving a voice sample does not constitute self-incrimination.
- Comparison of the sample with other evidence may incriminate, but the sample itself is purely material evidence.
- Analogy with Other Evidence:
- Drawing from State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the Court observed that handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, and voice samples are non-testimonial material evidence.
- Such evidence helps in comparison and verification but does not amount to oral testimony prohibited under Article 20(3).
- Applicability of Old Cr.P.C. and BNSS:
- Whether the old Cr.P.C. or the BNSS applies, Magistrates have the authority to order voice samples.
- BNSS merely codifies what the Court has already held under Ritesh Sinha.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Magistrate’s direction. The second respondent is now required to provide a voice sample for the ongoing investigation.
Case Title:
Rahul Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025
