Supreme Court Allows Collection of Voice Samples from Witnesses — Not Just Accused Persons

In a significant development that clarifies an important aspect of criminal procedure, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a court can order voice sample collection not only from the accused but also from witnesses, if such evidence is necessary for a criminal investigation. The ruling further strengthens the scope of forensic evidence admissibility while ensuring that such orders do not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

---

Voice Samples Do Not Amount to Self-Incrimination

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the act of furnishing a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused person from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. The bench clarified that providing a voice sample falls in the same category as submitting fingerprints, handwriting, or signature specimens, none of which amount to testimonial compulsion.

Quoting from the precedent in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the Court reiterated:

“Article 20(3) does not say that an accused person shall not be compelled to be a witness — it says he shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. A specimen handwriting or finger impression by itself is no testimony at all; they are only materials for comparison.”

This principle, the Court noted, equally applies to both accused persons and witnesses, since providing such physical evidence does not directly implicate them in a crime.

---

Calcutta High Court Order Set Aside

The ruling came while setting aside a Calcutta High Court order that had earlier refused permission to collect the voice sample of a witness. The High Court had reasoned that compelling a witness to provide such a sample was an unsettled question of law, pending reference to a larger bench.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this reference had already been “closed unceremoniously on default” and that the issue had been conclusively settled in the 2019 judgment in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

In Ritesh Sinha, a three-judge bench of the apex court had categorically held that a magistrate has the power to direct any person — including an accused — to provide a voice sample during investigation, even though no explicit provision existed in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) at that time.

---

Case Background

The current case stemmed from an investigation into the death of a 25-year-old woman in February 2021, which led to counter-allegations between her husband’s family and her parents. During the inquiry, police alleged that a man acting as an agent for the woman’s father had threatened a witness.

To verify this claim, the investigating officer sought permission to collect the agent’s voice sample for comparison with the alleged threat recording. A magistrate granted the request, but the order was subsequently overturned by the Calcutta High Court.

The Supreme Court, however, restored the magistrate’s order, terming the High Court’s reasoning as legally flawed and contrary to established precedent.

---

New Law: BNSS 2023 Codifies Voice Sampling

The Court also noted that even though the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) did not expressly empower magistrates to order voice samples earlier, the newly enacted Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, now includes Section 349, which explicitly provides for such power.

Section 349 of the BNSS authorises a magistrate to direct any person, whether accused or witness, to provide a voice sample if necessary for an investigation.

The bench held that the power now exists both by judicial interpretation under Ritesh Sinha (2019) and by statutory recognition under BNSS 2023, ensuring there is no ambiguity in law.

“Regardless of whether the CrPC or BNSS applies, the power to order voice sampling exists,” the Court observed, reinforcing the continuity between the old and new criminal procedure frameworks.

---

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving electronic communication, extortion, telephonic threats, and cybercrime.

Key takeaways include:

• Voice sampling can be ordered for both accused and witnesses.

• Such sampling does not violate Article 20(3) since it is non-testimonial in nature.

• Judicial precedent and statutory law now align, strengthening investigative powers under due process.

• The decision ensures balance between individual rights and justice delivery, preventing misuse while empowering courts to gather credible forensic evidence.

Legal experts believe that this ruling will streamline the evidentiary process in digital-era crimes where voice recordings often form crucial evidence but were previously restricted due to procedural uncertainty.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks another milestone in modernising India’s criminal justice system by bridging traditional procedural gaps with contemporary forensic needs.

By reaffirming that voice samples are neutral evidence, not self-incrimination, the judgment upholds both constitutional protections and investigative efficacy. As India transitions from the CrPC to the BNSS era, this decision ensures that technological progress and constitutional safeguards evolve in harmony.

---