Accused can be ordered to give voice sample: SC

Source: Times of India dated 03.08.2019

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling filling more than a century old vacuum in the CrPC, the apex court on Friday ruled that a person can be compelled to give voice sample for crime investigation and it will not violate his fundamental right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.

A bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna used the SC’s discretionary power conferred under Article 142 for the purpose of “doing complete justice” to empower magistrates to direct an accused to provide his voice sample, given the uniqueness of an individual’s voice.

Technology has widened scope of med exam of accused: CJI

An SC bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai had on December 7, 2012, returned a split verdict on whether a magistrate, without specific provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, which was overhauled in 1973, could be empowered by the SC to direct an accused to provide her/his voice sample to police. Nearly seven years later, the bench headed by CJI Gogoi said, “We unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by Parliament, a judicial magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime.”

Writing the unanimous judgment for the three-judge bench, the CJI said, “Such power has to be conferred on a magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court under Article142 of the Constitution.”

The case related to an FIR lodged on December 7, 2009, by the electronics cell of Sadar Bazar police station in Saharanpur of UP alleging that one Dhoom Singh, with his aide Ritesh Sinha, was collecting money from people on the promise of jobs in the police department. The police seized Singh’s mobile phone.

The investigating officer wanted to verify whether conversations recorded in the mobile phone were between Singh and Sinha. For this purpose, the IO moved the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) to get Sinha’s voice samples. The CJM ordered Sinha to give his voice sample. The Allahabad HC upheld the CJM’s order. But on Sinha’s appeal, the SC in December 2012 returned a split verdict because of the absence of any provision in the CrPC empowering a magistrate to order a person to provide his voice sample.

CJI Gogoi said medical examination of an accused was getting wider meaning with the advancement of technology, and cited amendments carried out in the CrPC which allowed medical examination of the accused and the mandate to a person to provide handwriting specimen for investigation of a crime.