LexRITESH SINHA versus THE STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 683 RITESH SINHA v. THE STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012} DECEMBER 7, 2012. [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Investigation: A B Identification of accused - Voice sample - Power of c Magistrate to issue summons to accused to appear before Investigating Officer and give his voice sample - Held: Taking voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution - However, there is no specific provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure 0 or in any other Jaw under which a Magistrate can authorize the investigating agency to record voice sample of a person accused of an offence - There being difference of opinion as regards the interpretation of the provisions of s.53 CrPC and s. 5 of the Prisoners Act so as to trace the power of the Magistrate to authorise obtaining of voice sample of the E accused, the matter referred to a bench of three Judges - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2(h), 53, Explanation (a), and s.54A - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - s. 5 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.20(3). F The instant appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the High Court whereby it rejected the petition filed by the appellant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing summons to the appellant to appear G before the investigating officer and give his voice sample in the course of investigation into an FIR alleging collection of money from people for getting them recruited in the police department. The questions for consideration 683 H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A before the Court were: (i) "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 B course of investigation into an offence?" and (ii) "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 c person accused of an offence?" D Referring the matter to a bench of three Judges, the Court HELD: (Per Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.) 1. If an accused person is directed to give his voice sample during the course of investigation of an offence, there is no violation of his right under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. When an accused is asked to give voice E sample, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a personal testimony. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination that by giving voice sample, the accused conveyed any information based upon his personal knowledge and became a witness against himself. The accused by giving the voice sample merely gives F 'identification data' to the investigating agency. He is not subjected to any testimonial compulsion. Thus, taking voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit by Art. 20(3). [Para 18) [710-F-G; 711-B-D] G State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 10 - relied on. Se/vi and others v. State of Kamataka 2010 (5) SCR 381 H = (2010) 7 SCC 263; and M.P. Sharma v. Salish Chandra & RITESH SINHA v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & 685 ANR. Ors. 1954 SCR 1077; Shyamla/ Mohan/al v. State of Gujarat A 1965 2 SCR 457; V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan & Anr. 1980 (1) SCR 673 = (1980) 1 SCC 264 - referred to. 2.1 There is no specific provision either in the Code or in any other law under which a Magistrate can 8 authorize the investigating agency to record voice sample of a person accused of an offence. The Law Commission, in its 87th Report, suggested that the Prisoners Act should be amended inter a/ia to include voice sample within the ambit of s.5 thereof. Parliament C however has not amended the Prisoners Act nor is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amended to add any such provision therein. Resultantly, there is no specific legal provision under which such a direction can be given. [Para 19] [711-E-G] D 2.2 However, a careful study of the relevant provisions of the Code and other relevant statutes discloses a scheme which aims at strengthening the hands of the investigator. Sections 53, 54A and 311A of the Code, s.73 of the Evidence Act and t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.