SUDHIR CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 29-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 7 S.C.R. 927 
SUDHIR CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 700-70 I of2016) 
JULY29, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.). 
. 
Evidence - Spectrographk examination - Voice sampling 
examination - Comparison between questioned and sample voice 
recording - Process for drawing voice sample - Fairness and 
reasonableness - Held: Having regard to the mandate of Art.21, 
the Court must ensure that the underlying process for drawing voice 
samples is fair and reasonable, however, it is not open to the accused 
to dictate the course of investigation - A ·commonality of words 
between the questioned andsample voice}ecordlng is necessary to 
facilitate a spectrographic examination - Permitting the text, lo be 
read out for drawing voice samples, to colllain words drawn from 
the disputed conversation, would meet the legitimate concern of the 
investigating authorities for making a fair comparison. howeve1; 
such text not to have sentences from I he i11culpatory text -
Investigation - Constitution of India -
Art.21. 
FIR was lodged against the appellants u/ss. 384, 511, 420 
and 120B, IPC. Investigating Officer filed application seeking 
consent of appellants for obtaining their voice samples for 
comparing it with a recording made in the course of a sting 
operation. The appellants consented for tendering voice samples, 
however they were aggrieved when made to read out inculpatory 
material drawn from audio recording of alleged sting operation. 
The High Court held that once the appellants gave consent to 
furnish voice sample, it was not open to them to dictate the course 
of investigation. Uence, the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellants expressiy consented to a voice 
sample being draWIJ, in their response to the application filed by 
the Investigating officer before the Court of Metropolitan 
927 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
928 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
Magistrate. This was reiterated before the High Court and also 
in the submissions which were urged in these proceedings. That 
being the position, the only surviving issue for this Court is to 
ensure that the underlying process for drawing the voice samples 
is fair and reasonable, having due regard to the mandate of Article 
21. JPara 10) (932-D-E) 
1.2 It is not open to. the accused to dictate the course of 
investigation. Hence, there is no substance in the submission 
that the text which is to be read by the appellants in the course of 
drawing their voice samples should contain no part of the 
inculpatory words which are a part of the disputed conversation. 
A commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic 
examination. [Para 10) [932-F'] 
2.1 By an earlier order, this Court had directed the 
Investigating officer to file a transcript of the disputed 
conversation in a sealed cover. The Director CFSL-CBI, was 
called upon to file in a sealed cover a proposed passage of a written 
text which the appellants shall be required to read out for the 
purpose of giving their voice samples using words, but not the 
sentences, appearing in the disputed conversation in such number 
as the Director/Scientific Officer may consider necessary for the 
purpose of comparison. [Para 12) [933-C-D) 
2.2 The said directions of this Court would allay the 
apprehension of the appellants in regard to the fairness of the 
process involved in drawing the voice sample. This would ensure 
that the text which the appellants were called upon to read out 
for the purpose of drawing their voice samples would not have 
sentences from the inculpatory text. Similarly, permitting the 
text to contain words drawn from the disputed conversation would 
meet the legitimate concern of the investigating authorities for 
making a fair comparison. [Para 13] [933-D-E) 
2.3 In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the 
Investigating officer has tiled in scaled cover: (i) transcripts of 
the disputed conversations; and (ii) a proposed passage of a 
written text required to be read out by the appellants for the 
purpose of giving their voice samples. The passage contains 
words but not the sentences appearing in the disputed 
conversation. The Investigating officer having complied with the 
SUDHIR CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
929 
directions of this Court, the order passed by the High Court stands 
A 
modified accordi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.