DATE: 13/10/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai
and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
FACTS:
The case originated from the death of a
25-year-old married woman on 16 February 2021, which led to allegations of
harassment and torture at her matrimonial home. In response,
counter-allegations were made by her husband’s family that the deceased and her
parents had misappropriated cash and jewellery belonging to them. Subsequently,
a cousin of the husband filed a complaint against the deceased’s parents.
During the investigation, it was revealed that the second respondent had acted
as an intermediary for the deceased’s father and had allegedly threatened a
witness who claimed to have knowledge of an extortion demand made through the
respondent.
Based on this information, the
Investigating Officer (IO) sought to collect the respondent’s voice sample to
verify the alleged threats. A petition (Annexure P11) was filed before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, who allowed the request through an order (Annexure
P13). However, the respondent challenged this order before the High Court,
which set aside the Magistrate’s decision, reasoning that a similar issue was
pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The complainant, aggrieved
by the High Court’s interference, approached the Supreme Court through a
Special Leave Petition (Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025).
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court
was whether a Magistrate has the power to direct a person, including a witness,
to provide a voice sample for investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.), given that there was no explicit provision for such direction prior
to the enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The
Court also examined whether compelling a witness to give a voice sample
violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article
20(3) of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of
the High Court and restored the Magistrate’s order allowing the collection of
the respondent’s voice sample. The Court held that even under the Cr.P.C., a
Magistrate was empowered to direct a person to furnish a voice sample,
following the binding precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2019) 8 SCC 1. The Court further clarified that with the introduction of
Section 349 of the BNSS, this power now has express statutory recognition.
The Court reasoned that the High Court
erred in refusing to follow the binding precedent laid down in Ritesh Sinha,
merely on the ground that the issue had been referred to a Larger Bench. The
Supreme Court pointed out that the reference had already been closed and thus
could not justify the High Court’s deviation. Referring to State of Bombay v.
Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808), the Court reiterated that providing
handwriting, signature, or voice samples does not amount to testimonial
compulsion, as these are forms of physical evidence, not “statements” capable
of self-incrimination. The Court emphasized that such samples are only tools
for comparison and verification during investigation and, by themselves, do not
incriminate an individual.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the
principle against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) applies only when a
person is compelled to provide testimonial evidence that directly establishes
guilt. Voice sampling, like fingerprinting or handwriting collection, merely
provides neutral material evidence that gains incriminatory value only when
compared with other evidence discovered during investigation. Thus, obtaining a
voice sample does not violate constitutional safeguards. The Court concluded that
whether the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS applies, the legal position remains consistent,
a Magistrate possesses the authority to order collection of voice samples, and
such direction does not offend the constitutional right against
self-incrimination.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Crl. A. @
SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025 reinforces the judicial recognition of a
Magistrate’s inherent authority to direct the collection of voice samples for
investigative purposes, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions
under the Cr.P.C. The judgment demonstrates the Court’s commitment to ensuring
that technological advancements in criminal investigation are harmonized with
constitutional protections. By reaffirming the precedent set in Ritesh Sinha v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), the Court upheld the principle that procedural
gaps in criminal law cannot obstruct legitimate investigation, especially when
such actions do not infringe upon the fundamental right against
self-incrimination. This pragmatic approach ensures that investigative agencies
retain essential powers to collect scientific evidence while maintaining
procedural fairness.
Moreover, the Court’s reliance on State of
Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) reaffirms the distinction between testimonial
evidence and physical evidence, which lies at the core of Article 20(3)
jurisprudence. The decision emphasizes that providing a voice sample, similar
to handwriting or fingerprint samples does not constitute a compelled testimony
but rather serves as neutral, non-communicative evidence. The judgment strikes
a balance between individual rights and the state’s duty to investigate crimes
effectively, illustrating judicial adaptability to evolving legal frameworks
such as the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which now
explicitly authorizes such measures. Overall, the ruling strengthens
investigative mechanisms while ensuring constitutional fidelity, setting a
clear precedent for future cases involving technological forms of evidence
collection.
info@adhwaitha.com