Supreme Court Upholds Magistrate’s Power to Direct Voice Sample Collection: High Court Order Set Aside.

Headnote:

Voice Sample Collection – Power of Magistrate – Article 20(3) – Applicability of Ritesh Sinha Precedent

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including a witness, to furnish a voice sample for investigation purposes. The Court held that such a direction does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution since the act of providing a voice sample does not amount to testimonial compulsion. The Court criticized the High Court for ignoring binding precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, merely because a reference to a Larger Bench had been made, which had already been closed. The Bench restored the Magistrate’s order allowing collection of the respondent’s voice sample.

Background:

1. A 25-year-old woman’s death on 16 February 2021 led to allegations of dowry-related harassment and counterclaims of misappropriation by her parents.
2. During investigation, the IO discovered that the second respondent had allegedly acted on behalf of the deceased’s father to threaten a witness privy to an extortion demand.
3. The IO sought permission from the Magistrate to obtain the respondent’s voice sample to verify the threats.
4. The Magistrate allowed the application. However, the Calcutta High Court set aside the order, citing lack of statutory backing in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the pendency of a reference before a Larger Bench on the issue.
5. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in refusing to follow binding precedent merely because a reference had been made, despite that reference being subsequently closed.
2. Relying on Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, and State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808, the Court reiterated that:
3. A voice sample is material or physical evidence, not testimonial evidence.
4. Taking a voice sample does not amount to self-incrimination, as it does not convey personal knowledge of facts in issue.
5. The power of the Magistrate to order such a sample existed even under the CrPC, and now stands expressly recognised under Section 349 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
6. The Court also clarified that the protection under Article 20(3) applies only when an accused is compelled to be a witness against himself, not when providing neutral evidence like voice, signature, or fingerprints.

Held:

1. A Judicial Magistrate has the authority to direct any person—including a witness—to furnish a voice sample during investigation.
2. Providing a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. The High Court’s order is unsustainable and is set aside.
4. The Magistrate’s order directing the second respondent to give his voice sample is restored.

Legal References:

1. Article 20(3), Constitution of India – Protection against self-incrimination.
2. Section 349, Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Power of Magistrate to order bodily and voice samples.
3. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2019) 8 SCC 1 – Magistrate’s power to order voice sample collection.
4. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 – Nature of self-incriminatory testimony.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that furnishing a voice sample is akin to giving fingerprints or handwriting and does not violate constitutional protections. The High Court’s interference was unjustified, and the Magistrate’s direction to collect the sample was validly restored.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1223

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, CJI & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Result: Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Set Aside – Magistrate’s Order Restored