Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a Magistrate is competent to direct the collection of voice samples not only from accused individuals but also from witnesses during investigation. The Court stated that such samples—whether of voice, handwriting, fingerprints, or DNA—constitute material evidence used for comparison and do not amount to testimonial evidence attracting the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Referring to Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019), the Bench clarified that the term “person” in this context is of wide import, empowering a Judicial Magistrate to order any person, and not merely an accused, to provide a voice sample when required for investigation.

The case arose 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 and counter-allegations of misappropriation of money and jewellery against her parents. A complaint filed by a relative of the deceased’s husband resulted in the registration of a case naming the woman’s parents as accused. During the investigation, the police were informed that a third person, acting as an agent of the deceased’s father, had allegedly threatened a witness who claimed knowledge of extortion demands made on behalf of the father.

Also Read: Supreme Court: For a Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law, Proof of Public Possession Is Essential; Absence of Mutation Raises Doubt over Ownership Claims

The Investigating Officer sought permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to collect a voice sample from this intermediary to compare it with recorded evidence. The Magistrate granted the request, allowing the collection of the sample. However, the concerned individual challenged the order before the Calcutta High Court, which set it aside, citing that the issue of a Magistrate’s power to order such sampling under the Criminal Procedure Code was pending before a Larger Bench. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the reference to the Larger Bench had been closed without a decision, and the High Court’s refusal to follow binding precedent was erroneous.

The Bench observed that “a purely academic question covered by a binding precedent of this Court was unnecessarily agitated and egregiously entertained by the High Court.” The Court noted that the reference cited by the High Court to justify its interference had already been “closed unceremoniously on default.”

The Bench stated that the issue of whether a Magistrate can direct a person to provide a voice sample was already settled in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1, where this Court had held that despite the absence of an explicit provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, a Judicial Magistrate possesses such power. The Court reiterated that the rule against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion. It recorded that “a specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions by themselves are no testimony at all, being wholly innocuous… They are only materials for comparison.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Absence of Specific Allegations of Neglect No Ground to Dismiss Senior Citizen’s Plea to Void Gift Deed to Child

The Bench further stated that “the same principle applies to voice sampling, which is a modern technological equivalent.” The Court clarified that even if the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were applicable, Section 349 now expressly empowers a Magistrate to order a person to provide such samples. Hence, the Magistrate’s order was lawful under either statute.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court and restored the order of the Magistrate. It directed that “the second respondent shall act in accordance with the order passed by the Magistrate.” The Bench recorded that there was “no reason to uphold the impugned order” and that “the appeal is hence allowed, reversing the order of the High Court and restoring that of the Magistrate.” All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR

Case Title: Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1223
Case Number: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran