Rahul Agarwal vs State of West Bengal 2025 INSC 1223 - Voice Sample Of Witness
Constitution of India - Article 20(3) ; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 349 -Whether the direction in Ritesh Sinha enabling the Magistrate to pass an order directing the accused to provide a voice sample would apply in the case of a witness ? SC held: Despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime- This Court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words ‘a person’ - Rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness. (Para 8)
Case Info
Case name: Rahul Agarwal vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1223
Coram: B. R. Gavai, CJI; K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Judgment date: October 13, 2025
Caselaws and Citations
- Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. — Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012; decided on 02.08.2019; reported at (2019) 8 SCC 1.
- State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad — AIR 1961 SC 1808.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — discussed regarding absence of explicit provision for directing voice samples; power read in by precedent.
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 349 specifically empowers Magistrates to direct a person to provide a voice sample.
- Constitution of India, Article 20(3) — privilege against self-incrimination, analyzed in context of specimen handwriting, fingerprints, and voice samples.
Does the Supreme Court judgment enabling the Magistrate to pass an order directing the accused to provide a voice sample would apply in the case of a witness?#SupremeCourt answers: https://t.co/SzfckXGmwL pic.twitter.com/GrvRIKCpWj
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 13, 2025
