Tags Evidence

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MISC. CRL, 45036 of 2020, Judgment Date: Jun 30, 2021

Law laid down -

1. Direction by the Magistrate to give voice sample during investigation does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

2. Article 20 of the Constitution of India extends certain protection 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 protection extended by Article 20(3) is only to the extent of being written against himself. Thus, it is clear that clause (3) of Article 20 extends protection against self incrimination to an accused person. Self incrimination is held to mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and it does not mean to include merely the mechanical process of producing document in the Court which may throw a light on any points of controversy but which does not contain any statement of accused based upon his present knowledge. Requiring an accused to give voice sample does not mean that he is asked to testify against himself. Voice sample is taken only for comparison. Hence, it cannot be said that when an accused is asked to give voice sample, he is compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is not violated in such a case.

3. No oportunity 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 investigation and such a direction does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, therefore, 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.

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

For the Latest Updates Join Now