The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation. Relying on the principle in Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ritesh Sinha, the Court ruled that such sampling does not constitute testimonial compulsion and does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from the death of a 25-year-old married woman in February 2021, leading to allegations of harassment by her in-laws and counter-allegations of misappropriation of cash and jewellery by her parents. During the investigation, it was alleged that the 2nd respondent acted as an agent for the deceased’s father and threatened a witness privy to an extortion demand. The Investigating Officer sought to subject the 2nd respondent to a voice sample test for comparison with recorded threats. Accordingly, an application was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who allowed the collection of the voice sample. The 2nd respondent challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) contained no specific provision empowering a Magistrate to direct a witness (as opposed to an accused) to provide a voice sample, and that such a direction violated the right against self-incrimination. The High Court, noting a pending reference to a Larger Bench on a similar issue, set aside the Magistrate’s order. The appellant, the complainant in the case, then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the reference had been closed and that the law was settled.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the filing of a petition (Annexure P11) by the Investigating Officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate, seeking an order to collect a voice sample from the second respondent. The Magistrate allowed this request via order Annexure P13. Aggrieved by this order, the second respondent filed a challenge before the High Court. The High Court, in the impugned order, set aside the Magistrate’s directive, citing a pending reference to a Larger Bench on the question of a Magistrate’s power to compel a witness (as opposed to an accused) to provide a voice sample under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant (complainant) then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the cited reference had been closed and that the law was already settled by precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave, heard the appeal, and ultimately allowed it, thereby reversing the High Court’s order and restoring the Magistrate’s original directive for the voice sample.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. It noted that the High Court erred in not following the binding precedent set in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh merely because a reference to a Larger Bench had been made, which was subsequently closed. The Court reaffirmed the principle from State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, which draws a clear distinction between testimonial compulsion and the furnishing of physical evidence. It observed that providing a voice sample is akin to providing fingerprints or handwriting specimens; it is a form of material evidence that does not, by itself, incriminate a person. The act of comparison with other evidence, which may lead to incrimination, does not fall under the prohibition of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the power to order such sampling applies to any person, including a witness, not just an accused. It further clarified that regardless of whether the Code of Criminal Procedure or the newer Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita applied, the legal position permitted the Magistrate’s order—under the former via judicial precedent and under the latter via explicit statutory provision under Section 349.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that the Judicial Magistrate was fully empowered to direct the second respondent, a witness in the case, to provide a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. It restored the original order passed by the Magistrate. The Court ruled that such a direction does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as a voice sample constitutes material evidence, not testimonial compulsion. The judgment reinforces that the legal principle established in Ritesh Sinha, which empowers a Magistrate to order any person to give a voice sample, remains valid and binding.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rahul Agarwal vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1223. Criminal Appeal No.: [arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025] Date of Judgement: October 13, 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice B. R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here