9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India: Whether it protects an accused from being compelled to give a voice sample during an investigation. 2. Absence of Provision in the Code: Whether a Magistrate can authorize the recording of a voice sample of an accused in the absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Summary: Issue 1: Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India 1. Self-Incrimination: The court examined whether compelling an accused to give a voice sample violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. 2. Judicial Precedents: The judgment referred to M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad to determine the scope of "testimonial compulsion." 3. Conclusion: The court concluded that taking a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) as it is akin to taking fingerprints or handwriting samples, which are considered non-testimonial physical evidence. The voice sample does not convey personal knowledge that could incriminate the accused. Issue 2: Absence of Provision in the Code 1. Legal Provisions: The court examined whether existing legal provisions allow a Magistrate to direct the recording of a voice sample. 2. Arguments: - Counsel for the Appellant: Argued that there is no provision in the Code or any other law authorizing the police to request a voice sample. The Magistrate lacks inherent powers to issue such a directive. - Amicus Curiae: Suggested that certain provisions like Section 53, Section 311A, and Section 54A of the Code could be interpreted to include voice samples. - State Counsel: Argued that the definition of "investigation" in the Code includes all necessary steps for evidence collection, implying that voice samples could be included. 3. Statutory Interpretation: - Section 53 of the Code: The court discussed whether the term "examination" in Section 53, which includes various physical tests, could be extended to include voice samples. - Identification of Prisoners Act: The court considered whether the term "measurements" in Section 2(a) of the Act, which includes finger impressions, could be interpreted to include voice samples. 4. Judicial Precedents: - Telgi Case: The Bombay High Court held that voice samples fall within the ambit of "measurements" under the Identification of Prisoners Act. - Rakesh Bisht Case: The Delhi High Court disagreed, stating that voice samples could not be compelled under the existing legal framework. 5. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Magistrate's power to authorize voice samples could be derived from Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and Section 53 of the Code. The court emphasized the need for legislative amendments to provide clear legal provisions for such investigative measures. Separate Judgment by Aftab Alam, J. 1. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Aftab Alam disagreed with the majority opinion, emphasizing that the law must come from the legislature and not through judicial interpretation. 2. Legislative Intent: He highlighted that the legislature, despite amendments in 2005, did not include voice samples in the relevant provisions, indicating a possible legislative intent. 3. Conclusion: Justice Alam would have allowed the appeal, setting aside the Magistrate's order, and suggested that the issue be addressed by the legislature. Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but due to the difference of opinion, the case was referred to a larger bench for further consideration.
|
