Voice Sampling in Criminal Investigation

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court in the case of Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) dismissed a petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted telephonic conversations, holding that such directions are legally valid and do not violate constitutional protections.

What was the Background of Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) Case? 

• Between October 2013 and March 2014, the Income Tax Department intercepted telephonic conversations from mobile numbers allegedly belonging to the petitioner. 
• The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint with the CBI on August 31, 2016, based on intercepted recordings and messages, alleging the petitioner acted as a middleman for public servants. 
• The CBI registered FIR No. 224/2017 on February 16, 2017 under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 8, 9, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• In March 2021, the CBI sought directions for the petitioner to give voice samples for comparison by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory with the intercepted calls. 
• The Special Judge allowed the application on October 26, 2021, relying on Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 1. 
• The petitioner challenged this order under Section 482 CrPC. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Procedural Laws and Substantive Justice: 

• The Court emphasized that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights. 

Voice Sampling and Self-Incrimination: 

• The Court held that voice sampling is not self-incriminatory and does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• Relying on Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the Court noted that self-incrimination means conveying information based on personal knowledge, not mechanical processes of producing evidence. 
• Voice samples are material evidence for comparison and are wholly innocuous by themselves, not constituting testimonial compulsion. 

Magistrate's Power to Direct Voice Sampling: 

• In Ritesh Sinha (2019), the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to fill the legislative gap, holding that judicial magistrates have power to order voice sampling for investigation. 
• The Supreme Court in Rahul Agarwal (2025) reaffirmed this and clarified that Section 349 of BNSS, 2023 has explicitly incorporated this power. 
• The power extends to any person, including accused and witnesses. 

Conclusion and Directions: 

• The Court found no illegality in the Special Judge's order and dismissed the petition. 
• The petitioner was directed to comply and provide voice samples as per schedule fixed by the Trial Court/Investigating Officer. 

What is Voice Sampling in Criminal Investigation? 

About: 

• Voice sampling involves recording a person's voice for comparison with disputed recordings in criminal investigations through spectrographic analysis at forensic laboratories. 
• Voice samples are material evidence, not testimonial evidence, and do not by themselves incriminate the person. 

Legal Framework: 

• The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (2019) filled the legislative gap by holding that judicial magistrates have power to order voice sampling. 
• Section 349 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has now explicitly codified this power. 

Constitutional Validity: 

• Voice sampling does not violate Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination, as established in Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961). 
• These are material evidence for comparison and are innocuous by themselves; only comparison with investigation material may lead to incrimination. 

What is Article 20(3) of the COI?  

• Article 20 deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences.  
• Article 20(3) affirms that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.  
• The right conferred by this article is a right which gives a privilege to an accused to remain silent during a trial or investigation whereas the State has no claim on the confession made by him. 
• In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) of the COI enjoys an exalted status. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities.