The appellant in this case of ritesh sinha vs state of up, made a First Information Report (FIR) at the Uttar Pradesh police station. Dhoom Singh is allegedly involved in money collection from multiple people while posing as a police officer, according to the F.I.R. One cell phone was taken by the police when they were holding Dhoom Singh. The investigating officer required Ritesh Sinha’s voice sample to verify whether the conversation captured on the cell phone was indeed between Ritesh Sinha and Dhoom Singh, so the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued an order for Sinha to appear before the investigating officer to hand over his voice sample.
In an attempt to challenge the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s ruling, Ritesh Sinha filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court. But the Allahabad High Court rejected his case. He then filed an appeal with the Indian Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that, until the following clauses are codified by the Legislature, the Magistrate may require the defendant to produce a sample of his voice for a criminal investigation in accordance with article 142 of the indian constitution. Consequently, the petition filed by the appellant Ritesh Sinha was dismissed by the court.
Humans utilize their mouths to make sounds during speech or song, which is known as their “voice.” Experts in the music business usually refer to a collection of an artist’s recorded sounds utilized in song composition as “voice samples.” In legal parlance, “voice sample” refers to a voice recording that is solely utilized in criminal investigations and legal or constitutional challenges. In this instance, the Investigating Agency or Police are only able to obtain the accused’s voice sample upon the Magistrate’s directive. But since getting the accused’s voice sample could violate their right to privacy, there are a lot of issues that could arise.
ritesh sinha vs state of up Case Facts
- On December 7, 2009, the electronics cell in-charge of the Sadar Bazaar Police Station in the district of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Dhoom Singh, a person connected to the appellant Ritesh Sinha, was involved in obtaining money from different people by posing as a police recruiter.
- The investigating authorities detained Dhoom Singh and confiscated one cell phone from him.
- The investigating authorities sought to verify if the appellants, Ritesh Sinha and Dhoom Singh, were the subjects of the phone conversation that was recorded.
- They applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), a learned jurisdictional official, stating that they needed the appellant’s voice sample and asking to have him called before the court so that it might be recorded.
- The appellant was asked by the learned CJM of Saharanpur to appear before the investigating officer and provide a voice sample, as per an order dated January 8, 2010.
- This learned CJM’s order was challenged before the Allahabad High Court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure 1973. The High Court likewise dismissed Ritesh Sinha’s appeal.
- Following that, a two-judge panel of the Supreme Court heard the matter; after rendering a divided ruling, the panel sent the case to a three-judge panel.
ritesh sinha vs state of up Issues
- Is it possible for someone accused of a crime to avoid being forced to testify against themselves under article 20 3 of the indian constitution, and to avoid being forced to produce a voice sample in the course of an investigation into the crime?
- In the absence of any regulations in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, can a magistrate grant permission to the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the individual charged with an offense?
ritesh sinha vs state of up Judgment
- When answering the first question, the two-judge bench came to a consensus and cited the precedent established in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Hon’ble Court noted.
- The case of Kathi Kalu examined the issue of determining an accused person’s guilt by comparing their writing sample to other writings in light of the restriction under article 20 3 of the indian constitution.
- The ruling concluded that the constitutional provision contemplated in article 20 3 of the indian constitution would only apply in situations where an accused person’s testimony is self-incriminating or of a nature that has the potential to incriminate the accused person himself, and that it “does not say that an accused person shall not be compelled to be a witness.”
- The court further emphasized that requesting a sample of an accused person’s handwriting or finger impression did not implicate the accused because these items fall under the third category of material evidence, which is not considered “testimony” and is merely used as a benchmark to reassure the court that its conclusion drawn from other pieces of evidence is accurate. In view of this decision, the Court determined that article 20 3 of the indian constitution did not prohibit requiring the accused to record a voice sample.
- When answering the second question, the Court pointed out that no specific statute existed in India that gave a police officer or a judge the power to order an accused person to produce a voice sample.
- On the contrary, the Court referred to Act No. 25 of 2005’s modifications to Sections 53, 53A, and 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as the 87th Report of the Law Commission of India, which examined a similar matter in relation to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
- The Court stated that although there may be valid reasons for the Legislature to remain silent despite express requests to close this gap in the Act, such a void must be filled in accordance with both the principles of ejusdem generis and imminent necessity, along with a request that the Legislature take immediate action.
- The Court agreed with Lord Denning’s position in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, which stated that a judge cannot just throw blame on the draftsman when a flaw shows up.
- Until the Parliament establishes explicit provisions in the CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate must be granted the authority to order a person to give a sample of his voice to investigate a crime, while exercising its power under article 142 of the indian constitution.
- He must begin working on the constructive task of determining the intention of Parliament and then supplement the written words so as to give “force and life” to the intention of the legislature.
It is necessary to change the law to include provisions for asking someone to provide a voice sample because specific experts in the audio quantifiable branch of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Center can investigate the voice ID.
To ensure that the investigation is as accurate as can be expected under the conditions, the sound forensic specialist uses voice biometric programming, basic tuning in, recurrence and waveform study, and other techniques. Voice identification uses the frequency and intensity of a person’s speech waves to identify them.
It has been observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) needs to be reasonably changed. Sometimes a court’s intervention isn’t an advocacy because the voice test requires a reference to the legal system’s arrangement. If not, it could be viewed as a violation of the people’s fundamental rights to privacy and security.
Today’s world is full of examples of the creative advancements in communication techniques, such as the use of cell phones, computers, and other devices by criminals to commit crimes like kidnapping for ransom, exercising oppressive control over others out of fear, murder, and so forth.
In order to strengthen the hands of research organizations and the court to provide a purposeful translation of the agreement, there should be legal ways to use voice samples. Payoff, defilement, deception, unlawful exchange, telephone danger, and other criminal situations may be explained by inventive advancement, especially phone conversations.
By suitably amending the Provision Act and Cr.P.C. receipt inspecting, the Parliament must obtain more precision and clarity. The judge’s direction during the arraignment to record the accused person’s voice sample illegally isn’t satisfactory, and occasionally there is a lack of evidence that allows the guilty to commit crimes.
Since ICT has taken over the globe, the court must also remain cognizant of the ongoing modernization. Illegal information has been disseminated by phone calls, texts, faxes, and other means that are easily accessible for handling certain illegal situations, providing substantial evidence against the accused.
However, using voice inspection as evidence against the accused has been made illegal by the law. A legal statute that specifies the magistrate’s willingness to submit to a voice examination for the purpose of overseeing court operations should exist.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
