Introduction:
The landmark case addresses the interpretation of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Specifically, it explores whether this constitutional provision protects an accused from being compelled to provide a voice sample during the course of a criminal investigation.
Facts:
On December 7, 2009, the FIR was lodged at Sadar Bazar Police Station in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that Ritesh Sinha and Dhoom Singh collected money by falsely promising jobs in the police force. After Dhoom Singh's arrest, a mobile phone was seized containing recorded conversations that allegedly involved Ritesh Sinha. The investigating authority sought to collect Ritesh Sinha's voice sample to verify these conversations. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) issued a summons for the voice sample on January 8, 2010. Ritesh Sinha challenged the summons before the Allahabad High Court, but his plea was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to a larger bench after a split verdict from a two-judge bench.
Issues:
- Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends to protecting an accused from being compelled to provide a voice sample during an investigation into an offence?
- Assuming no violation of Article 20(3), whether a Magistrate can authorize the investigating agency to compel an accused person to provide a voice sample in the absence of a specific provision in the CrPC?
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that compelling him to provide a voice sample would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). He contended that a voice sample is akin to testimonial evidence, which could be used to incriminate him, and thus should be protected under the self-incrimination clause.
Ritesh Sinha further argued that no provision in the CrPC (now BNSS) explicitly allows for the collection of voice samples, and as such, the direction from the Magistrate was legally unsound.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent argued that providing a voice sample is not a violation of Article 20(3) because it is not testimonial in nature and does not involve the accused providing self-incriminating evidence. They contended that the voice sample was required for forensic comparison purposes and was akin to other forms of physical evidence, such as fingerprints or handwriting, which have been previously ruled as non-testimonial. The respondent also emphasized that there was no explicit provision in the CrPC that prevents the Magistrate from authorizing the collection of voice samples, and in any case, the Supreme Court has the power to fill statutory gaps when necessary.
Court's Analysis:
The Court held that Article 20(3) only applies when an accused is compelled to provide self-incriminatory testimony. It clarified that providing a voice sample for comparison purposes does not amount to self-incrimination, as it does not involve the accused speaking or giving information that could directly incriminate them. This reasoning aligned with the State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) ruling, which stated that compelling the accused to provide physical evidence like handwriting or fingerprints does not violate Article 20(3).
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) Supreme Court ruling on self-incrimination and physical evidence.
The Court noted that while the CrPC had provisions for the collection of physical evidence under Sections 53, 53A, and 311A (Now Section 51,51A.349A of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023), there was no specific provision for voice samples. However, the Court found that such an omission could be addressed by judicial intervention when statutory silence affects societal interests. It held that the Magistrate had the authority to compel the accused to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison, given the lack of an explicit legal bar.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not extend to protecting an accused from being compelled to provide a voice sample during the investigation of an offence. The Court held that the Magistrate has the authority to direct the collection of voice samples, as such evidence does not fall within the purview of self-incriminatory testimony. This ruling affirmed the broader interpretation of self-incrimination, allowing for the collection of non-testimonial physical evidence, such as voice samples, during an investigation.
