Taking Voice Sample Of Accused Does Not Make Him Witness Against Himself: Court Allows Prosecution's Plea Against Meeran Haider In Riots Case

A Delhi Court on Friday allowed an application moved on behalf of the prosecution seeking permission to take voice sample of Meeran Haider, accused in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat noted that the aspect of taking voice sample of an accused is an aspect of investigation which does not make the accused witness against himself.

However, in order to protect the rights of the accused and considering the issues raised on his behalf, the Court issued the following directions:

- The Investigating Officer shall coordinate with CFSL and fix a time and date for obtaining voice samples of the accused Meeran Haider and inform the Court about the same so that production warrants of the said accused can be issued for CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi for the said purpose.

- The concerned Jail Superintendent shall ensure production of the accused on the time and date informed by the I.O as well as in accordance with the production warrants issued by this Court for the purposes of obtaining voice samples of the accused at CFSL.

- The Jail Superintendent as also the Director, CFSL, CBI shall ensure due compliance of Covid-protocol while ensuring the completion of process of voice sample.

- The Director CFSL shall get prepared a proposed transcript of the text to be read by the accused under his supervision or through a voice sample expert available at the CFSL or as he deems fit on the basis of the material supplied by the I.O of the present case, for the purposes of investigation and obtaining voice samples keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sudhir Chaudhary (supra).

- The Director CFSL /IO shall file a copy of proposed transcript once it is prepared by the Director CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi or under his supervision, in terms of the above directions, in a sealed envelope before this Court.

-  Alok Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the accused shall be duly inti­ mated in advance about the date and time of production of accused at CFSL for the purposes of obtaining voice samples of the accused.

- The Counsel for the accused may remain present at CFSL at the time of obtaining voice samples of the accused on the date and time informed by the IO with the permission of Director CFSL/IO and have legal interview with the accused for 15 minutes only. Ld. Counsel for the accused shall not interfere/raise objections to the proceedings being conducted at CFSL.

- After the voice sample of the accused are taken at CFSL, the copy of the transcript to be read by the accused at the time of obtaining voice samples as prepared by them in terms of the present directions shall be supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the accused.

- The accused Meeran Haider shall give his voice sample on the day and time fixed by the I.O in consultation with Director, CFSL, in terms of directions passed through this order.

It was the case of the prosecution that during the investigation, Meeran Haider was arrested April 1, 2020. The mobile phone of the co­ accused Asif Iqbal Tanha was seized and sent to CERT­-In for examination.

According to the prosecution, the data retrieved by the CERT­-In was examined and some incriminating audio call recordings were found.

It was submitted that in the audio call recordings found in the recovered data, accused Meeran Haider was alleged to be in conversation with Asif lqbal Tanha.

Therefore it was argued that the Haider's voice sample was relevant, necessary and desirable to identify, match and compare the voice in audio call recordings.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court has held that there is no infringement of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution by compelling an accused person to give a specimen, handwriting or impressions of his fingers palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of the Court for the purposes of comparison.

"Moreover, it has also been held that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India," the Court added.

The FIR contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 and various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In September last year, main chargesheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in November against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.

Click Here To Read Order