Accused rights - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting

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 Investi...

Supreme Court Facilitates Settlement in Rape and Cheating Case, Orders Return of Money and Gold

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals concerning allegations under Sections 376, 406, and 506 of the IPC by facilitating a settlement. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum with the Trial Court and gold ornaments with the High Court Registrar for release to the prosecutrix, thereby resolving the disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR registered against the appellant-accused based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the prosecutrix. She alleged that the accused, who was assisting her with ongoing divorce proceedings, forcefully subjected her to sexual intercourse in December 2017 under the threat of disseminating her photographs. Subsequently, on multiple occasions in 2018, he established a physical relationship with her on the false ...

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...