- The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana HC has reiterated in Ravi Prakash Sharma vs. State of Punjab that directions to take voice samples of the accused is not violative of the doctrine against self-incrimination as envisaged in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
- The Court observed that the infringement of the Fundamental Right to Privacy cannot be used as a shield to scuttle the investigation nullifying the evidence collected.
- In this case, the Additional Sessions Judge had given an order directing the petitioner to give a voice sample. An FIR was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for taking illegal gratification. The telephonic conversations of the accused had been taken by the police.
- The prosecution then filed an application for taking a voice sample, while the petitioner argued that this is in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and is also violative of the Fundamental Right to Privacy.
- While deciding whether the taking of a voice sample is in violation of the right of privacy, the Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India and ors (2017) SCC and observed that the right of privacy is not absolute. The Court observed that a voice sample resembles fingerprints and handwriting, and every person has a distinct voice with characteristic features dictated by vocal cavities and articulates. The sample which is taken is after permission in accordance with law. The sample taken isn’t itself an evidence, it is just used to compare the evidence already collected.
- The Hon’ble HC also referred to the case of Ritesh Sinha vs State of UP (2019) SCC wherein it was held that the direction to take a voice sample is not violative of Article 20(3).
- The Court also observed that with the passage of time, the modes of communication are also changing and that there is a need for new technology that can collect and compare the evidence.
- The Court also observed that unless a special provision is inserted in CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate must be given the power to order a person to give his voice sample for the purposes of investigation, and this power is conferred on the magistrate by judicial interpretation in light of Article 142 of the Constitution.
- Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
