Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.  
• This judgment was delivered by a 3-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. 

Facts  

• On December 7, 2009, the In-charge of the Electronics Cell at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, lodged an FIR. 
• The FIR alleged that Dhoom Singh, in association with the appellant Ritesh Sinha, collected money from people under the false promise of securing jobs in the police force. 
• Dhoom Singh was arrested, and a mobile phone was seized from him. 
• The investigation sought to verify whether the recorded conversations on the seized mobile phone were between Dhoom Singh and Ritesh Sinha. 
• The investigating authority filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Saharanpur, to summon Ritesh Sinha for recording his voice sample. 
• On January 8, 2010, the CJM issued summons directing the appellant to provide his voice sample. 
• Ritesh Sinha challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), but the High Court dismissed his plea on July 9, 2010. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, Ritesh Sinha appealed to the Supreme Court. 
• A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, necessitating a reference to a larger bench.

Issues Involved

• Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his voice sample during the course of investigation into an offence?  
• Assuming that there is no violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, whether in the absence of any provision in the Code, can a Magistrate authorize the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the person accused of an offence? 

Observations 

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court observed that the question was answered in negative by both the Learned Judges following the ratio in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghadi (1961). 
  • The Court observed that the prohibition contemplated by the constitutional provision contained in Article 20(3) would come in only in cases of testimony of an accused which are self- incriminatory or of a character which has the tendency of incriminating the accused himself. 
  • However in those cases where the Court is aking only for materials for the purposes of comparison the same would not fall under the prohibition of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • Thus, the Court held that the prohibition of Article 20 (3) of COI does not apply in those cases where a person is compelled to give voice samples.
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • The Court observed that Sections 53, 53A, and 311A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), introduced via amendments in 2005, explicitly allow for the collection of physical evidence such as handwriting and signatures. However, they do not extend this authority to the collection of voice samples. 
  • The omission has been interpreted by some as deliberate legislative inaction, raising questions about whether courts should intervene to fill this statutory gap. 
  • Judicial intervention becomes necessary when statutory silence affects societal interests and the proper functioning of justice. 
  • It was obsereved by the Court that it has been ruled that providing physical evidence like fingerprints or handwriting does not amount to self-incrimination, as such evidence is not inherently testimonial. 
  • In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the Court ruled that compelling an accused to provide physical evidence (e.g., handwriting, fingerprints) does not violate Article 20(3) because such evidence does not constitute testimonial compulsion. 
  • By extension, providing voice samples is seen as falling within this category of evidence. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which provides that 
  • Article 20 (3) does not extend to protecting the accused from being compelled to give his voice sample during the course of investigation into the offence. 
  • The Magistrate has the power to direct a person to compulsorily give voice samples during the course of investigation.

[Original Judgment]