Article 20(3) Isn't Violated If Magistrate Directs Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Sans Consent: MP High Court

The Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Virender Singh has reiterated the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling which held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent.

[NOTE: Article 20 of the Constitution of India extends certain protections to a person in respect of the conviction for offence and sub-clause (3) thereof provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.]

The bench also ruled that:

"No opportunity of hearing to the accused is necessary while issuing such a direction. Since power exists with the Magistrate to issue a direction to give voice sample during the investigation and such a direction does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India"

The Court also added that unless the accused is in a position to show that any prejudice is caused with the direction, he has no right of hearing at the stage of issuing the direction.

The matter on brief

The petitioner is an accused in a trap case and the voice sample of the petitioner was required to tally it with the recorded voice, hence the petitioner was given the notice to appear in the Office of the Collector and give his voice sample.

When the petitioner refused to comply with the order, the investigating agency approached the trial court and the trial court after examining the entire case and the case diary, found that the voice sample of the petitioner was required.

Hence it had granted permission to the investigating agency to take the voice sample and directed the petitioner to give the voice sample

Consequently, the petitioner challenged an order of the trial Court before the High Court contending that such a direction violated the petitioner's right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and infringed the petitioner's privacy.

Court's observations

The Court opined that requiring an accused to give a voice sample does not mean that he is asked to testify against himself. Voice sample is taken only for comparison.

Referring to Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808, the Court said thus:

"The specimen handwriting or signature or finger impression by themselves are not testimony at all and they are only materials for comparison. It has further been held that they are neither oral nor documentary evidence but belong to the third category of material evidence which is outside the limit of testimony. When voice sample is taken that also stands on the same footing and therefore same reasoning applies for voice sample also."

Case title - R.K. Akhande vs. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal and another

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order