Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DATED : 16.11.2017
CORAM:
P.Kishore .. Petitioner
Vs
State rep. By
Addl. Superintendent of Police,
SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai. .. Respondent
ORDER
Officer to direct the accused person to give his specimen voice for
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
comparison.
record the sample voice of the petitioner and others. Accordingly, the
voice samples were also drawn pursuant to the trial court order.
Court in the Ritish Sinha case, wherein, the learned Judges due to
voice sample had referred the matter to the Larger Bench of the
constitution.
polygraph test, and brain mapping. Drawing voice sample was not
the subject matter, hence, it is not applicable to the facts of this case.
his voice sample and the same has been recorded against his
consent.
consideration, the learned Judge disagreed with each other and had
referred the matter for larger Bench and the same is pending. In the
this State but to the entire country, since the larger Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not yet passed for the reference made in
Ritish Sinha case, whether the trial Court should entertain to permit
the petitions for drawing voice samples of the accused or not. Some
of the High Courts have made it clear that reference of the issue to
the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is no bar for the trial
some of the High Courts has taken a different view. This Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
consistency.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the area of
signature or handwriting.
to give his voice sample on the ground that such a direction will be
accused.
report.
to give voice sample will not fall within the ambit of right of silence.
not the dilog or the transcript. In this aspect, this Court like to
Act, to direct the accused person to give his voice sample which falls
with the test like narco- analysis, polygraph examination and the
handwriting.
wish to give voice sample. While this view has been expressed by one
of the learned Judge who has authored the Ritish Sinha case and
15. Apart from relying upon the views expressed by the Hon'ble
Mr.Justice Aftab Alam in Ritish Sinha case, the learned counsel for
the petitioner also relied upon the following judgments of the other
high Courts:
such as polygraph test, narcotic test and brain mapping. When use of
Crl.LJ 2868, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, reversed the order of
the trial Court allowing the Investigating Agency to record the voice
sample of the accused. The Bombay High Court in the said judgment,
under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Delhi High Court
are framed and in the proceedings before the court. The Court
and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of
Mr. Justice Ranjan Desai in Ritesh Sinha case, has held the phrase,
act.
20. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
sample from the accused person. Finally, in the light of Article 20(3)
test as laid down by the three Bench Judges in Selvi case, it is amply
clear that drawing voice sample fall within the meaning of physical
testimonial compulsion.
body voice is recorded. Since it emanates from the body, though not
upon the accused person. Therefore, as long as the law on this point
as three Judges Bench dissent the voice of one each other in the
this Court and contra either of them only have a persuasive value
Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (cited supra) and the three judges
out earlier, already voice sample has been drawn pursuant to the
order passed by the trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of
Delhi has held that once voice sample been given by the accused
investigation. The facts of the said case almost similar to the case in
hand. Except the petitioner pleads that voice sample was taken under
taking through the march of law, on this issue, ultimately, raised his
doubt about the very evidentiary value of the comparing voice, when
venture upon comparing the disputed voice with that of the sample
24. Precisely, that is the reason why this Court is of the firm
opinion that the person accused cannot refuse to give his voice
the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
16.11.2017
jbm/ari
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/non speaking order
To
http://www.judis.nic.in
18
G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
jbm/ari
Crl.R.C.No.1752 of 2011
16.11.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in