Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004456-004456 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 16918/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Magistrate has power under Section 482 CrPC (or BNSS 2023) to direct any person—including a witness—to provide a voice sample without infringing Article 20(3) of the Constitution. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that magistrates possess inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to order specimen‐voice samples from any person for investigation, applying the same logic as in specimen handwriting or fingerprint sampling (State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad). Such samples are non-testimonial and do not attract the self-incrimination bar under Article 20(3). The 2019 decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP explicitly extended this principle to voice samples and remains binding until CrPC is amended. The BNSS 2023 (Section 349) now codifies this power. High Courts must follow binding precedents notwithstanding references to larger benches that have been closed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019) 8 SCC 1; State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A 25-year-old woman’s death led to cross-allegations of harassment and misappropriation. A witness implicated the second respondent in extortion, prompting the IO to seek a judicial order for a voice sample. The Magistrate granted that petition (Annexure P13); the High Court set it aside citing a pending larger-bench reference, though that reference had been closed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts and High Courts when considering voice/sample-test applications. |
| Follows | Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP & Anr. (2019) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that taking a voice sample is a non-testimonial act and does not violate Article 20(3).
- Confirms magistrates’ inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to order voice sampling from any person in investigation.
- Highlights that BNSS 2023 Section 349 explicitly empowers magistrates to direct voice samples.
- Emphasises that High Courts must apply binding Supreme Court precedents even if larger-bench references are pending or closed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Non-testimonial nature of specimen samples
- Citing Kathi Kalu Oghad, physical samples (handwriting, fingerprints, voice) do not amount to “testimony” and thus fall outside Article 20(3).
-
Extension to voice samples
- Ritesh Sinha held that magistrates have inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to order voice samples for investigation, applying the same rationale as for handwriting/fingerprint samples.
-
BNSS 2023 codification
- Section 349 of BNSS specifically authorises magistrates to direct voice sampling, reinforcing the three-judge bench’s interim directive in Ritesh Sinha.
-
Applicability irrespective of Code
- Whether CrPC or BNSS applies, outcome is identical: magistrates may order voice samples from any person for investigatory purposes.
-
Binding precedent compliance
- High Courts must follow this binding Supreme Court precedent and cannot defer to closed larger-bench references.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Complainant)
- The Magistrate’s order for voice sampling was validly granted under CrPC inherent powers and binding precedent.
- The High Court erred in setting aside the order based on a closed larger-bench reference.
Second Respondent (Target of Voice Sample)
- CrPC contains no explicit voice-sample provision; only BNSS empowers such orders.
- Question should be decided by a larger bench before compelling any voice sample.
Factual Background
A 25-year-old married woman died on 16 February 2021, triggering allegations of marital harassment and counter-alleged misappropriation of her husband’s family property. A cousin of the husband filed a complaint naming her parents as accused. During investigation, a witness claimed the second respondent acted as an agent in an extortion plot; the IO sought a court-directed voice sample from the second respondent. The Magistrate granted the petition under Annexure P13; the High Court reversed it citing a pending larger bench reference that had since been closed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: Inherent jurisdiction allows magistrates to pass orders necessary for ends of justice, including investigatory directions not explicitly provided.
- BNSS 2023, Section 349: Explicitly empowers magistrates to order collection of voice samples from any person for investigatory purposes.
- Article 20(3), Constitution: Bars only testimonial compulsion; non-testimonial physical samples are permissible.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None – unanimous judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None – the Court reaffirmed existing jurisprudence without laying down new procedural rules.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed