While upholding an order of the Magistrate allowing an Investigating Officer’s application seeking a voice sample of a witness, the Supreme Court has reiterated that a Judicial Magistrate can order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime. The Apex Court also reaffirmed that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such.

The Apex Court made such observations while considering a matter relating to domestic violence.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted, “Following the aforesaid precedent, it was held in Ritesh Sinha that despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime. We specifically note that this Court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words ‘a person’, consciously because the Rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness. It was also directed that till explicit provisions are incorporated in the Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate will be so empowered by virtue of the said judgment. The issue was also pending with the Government and with the advent of the BNSS, it has been specifically incorporated under Section 349.”

"The reasoning was also that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such. It would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination", it added.

Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu represented the Appellant while Advocate Ranjan Mukherjee represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A 25-year-old married woman died in the year 2021, which led to an allegation of harassment and torture at the matrimonial home and counter counter-allegation that the deceased, together with her parents, misappropriated cash and jewellery belonging to the family of husband. A cousin of the husband of the deceased filed a complaint before the police in which the deceased’s father and mother were arrayed as accused. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer was informed that the second respondent acted as the agent of the father of the deceased and threatened a witness who alleged that he was privy to the extortion demand made by the father through the second respondent. The Officer required the second respondent to be subjected to a voice sample test, for which collection of the voice sample was sought before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

A petition was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was allowed. The second respondent challenged the same before the High Court, and the High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Magistrate, finding that a similar question was referred to a Larger Bench.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019) wherein it was held that a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime. The Bench explained that if it is the Cr.P.C., the three Judge Bench decision in Ritesh Sinha (Supra) permits the same on the identical principle adopted by this Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) to permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions.

The Bench further asserted, “The said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology. If it is the BNSS that is applicable, then there is a specific provision enabling such sampling."

Thus, finding no reason to uphold the impugned order, the Bench set aside the same. Allowing the appeal, the Bench also directed the second respondent to act in accordance with the order passed by the Magistrate.

Cause Title: ABC v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1223)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, AOR Sunil Kumar Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Ranjan Mukherjee, Anindo Mukherjee, AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Kunal Mimani

Click here to read/download Judgment



CJI BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.