This Case Commentary is written by Rajyashri Mandal, a Third-year law student of Department of Law, University of Calcutta

CASE NAME- RITESH SINHA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGEMENT- 2ND AUGUST, 2019

BENCH STRENGTH – 3, SANJIV KHANNA, DEEPAK GUPTA, RANJAN GOGOI

CASE TYPE- CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION - (2019) 8 SCC 1, AIR 2019 SC 3592

PARTIES-

Petitioner- Ritesh Sinha

Respondent- State of Uttar Pradesh

CASE BRIEF -

This case is regarded as a landmark verdict of the Supreme Court of India. It deals with whether compelling an accused to give a voice sample during the investigation which may violate article 20(3) of the constitution, restricts the process of self-incrimination.

FACTS OF THE CASE -

Ritesh Sinha, appellant of the case alleged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for involved in the collection of monies from people on the promise of jobs. Police compelled the accused to give voice samples to compare but Ritesh Sinha refused and claimed that it would violate his constitutional rights. The matter applied to the Magistrates court and the Magistrate ordered the accused to give his voice sample. Further, it went before the two Judge bench of the Supreme Court but it gave a split opinion finally, it referred to the three-judge Bench.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT -

Supreme Court addressed legal concerns in this case, those are:

1. Article 20(3) of the constitution protects an accused from self-incrimination, the question is whether it prohibits self-incrimination extends to protect the accused from being compelled to give his voice samples during the process of investigation of an offense.

2. Article 21 of the constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, does collecting voice samples for investigation violate the right to privacy?

3. In the CrPC, no provision permits the magistrate to allow the collection of voice samples during criminal proceedings. There was a gap in Procedural law.

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONERS-

Ritesh Sinha raised some arguments to challenge the state of Uttar Pradesh, those are

1. He argued that providing a voice sample would violate his right against self-incrimination

2. He contended that forcing him to provide voice samples violets his right to privacy.

3. He also pointed out that no provision on CrPC allowed police to compel an accused person to provide a voice sample.

4. He also expressed his concern about the further use of his voice sample, where there is no clear guide line to regulate the process.

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENTS-

In this case, the respondents primarily represent the state, and provided several counterarguments to obtain a voice sample from the accused. They focused on effective criminal investigation to ensure justice. The main arguments are-

1. The Respondent argued that collecting voice samples is a physical characteristic similar to collecting fingerprints, blood samples, or handwriting. It does not involve any personal thoughts. If voice samples provide only physical attribution it would not hamper the right against self-incrimination.

2. They argued that voice samples are physical evidence and involve in minimal intrusion into an individual’s privacy which is reasonable in the interest of investigating.

3. They pointed out that voice samples are increasingly important in the forensic analysis of recorded evidence. Modern investigative techniques require the use of voice comparison to establish connections between the accused and the crime, especially in cases involving phone calls, recorded conversations, and other electronic communication.

4. They argued that the legal framework already permits the collection of certain types of physical evidence, such as fingerprints and handwriting samples, and that voice samples should be treated in the same manner. Although the CrPC does not explicitly mention voice samples, it implicitly allows for the collection of physical characteristics in the course of a criminal investigation.

5. They assured that voice samples would be subjected to scientific analysis for forensic reports and would only be used to match with existing evidence. There wouldn’t opportunity for manipulation or misuse.

RELATED PROVISIONS –

In this case, provisions of the Indian Constitution and criminal law enactments mainly regarding self-incrimination, privacy, and the admissibility of forensic evidence in criminal proceedings come into play. Relevant legal provisions are highlighted below:

i. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution –

This principle serves to prevent the compulsion of an accused to give evidence that is against him or her-self, which may even be in the form of oral or testimonial evidence. What became the key question in this case was whether the provision of a voice sample falls within the prohibition of "testimonial compulsion," and contravenes Article 20(3). Whether voice sample is not violet self-incrimination as like fingerprints or handwriting.

ii. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution –

Indian Courts recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The case of respondents is that intrusion is minimal and justified in the interest of public safety and effective investigation. And the court recognized the stats duty to fulfill the bigger duty.

iii. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 –

Section 53: Examination of the Accused by Medical Practitioner on Request of Police Officer--When a person is arrested or charged with an offense and said the offense is such which reasonably suspected to be committed; it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner to act at the request of a police officer, to examine as may necessary. After reading this search part your conscience will start searching the accused for physical evidence, maybe even blood samples and fingerprints. Pointing out that voice samples were nowhere mentioned in CrPC, counsel for the respondents argued that voice samples constitute part of physical evidence which is dealt with under Section 53.

Section 311A: Power of Magistrate to Order Person to Give Specimen Signatures or Handwriting: If a Magistrate is satisfied that it would be desirable to require any person to furnish a specimen of his signature or handwriting for any investigation or proceedings under this Code, he shall so require such person to furnish such specimen. This section permits specimen signatures and handwriting, just like voice samples to be taken. Although voice samples were not mentioned in the enumeration, respondents maintained that the principle would prevail regarding voice samples.

iv. Section 164A – Medical Examination of the Victim of Rape –

This provision allows the collection of biological specimens during the time a person is undergoing medical examination on detentions in the pursuit of certain crimes, like rape. Even though this chapter covers a wide range of different kinds of evidence, it partly illustrates the usage of physical evidence-lawful collection at a crime scene. Such kinds of evidence are DNA, fingerprints, and biological samples.

v. Police Act, 1861 – Police Powers to Investigate and Collect Evidence –

It takes care of the general powers of the police for any kind of investigation, collection of evidence, and cooperation from an accused during criminal procedures. The Police Act, though doesn't directly talk about voice samples, provides more general authority for law enforcement agencies seeking evidence to solve crimes.

VERDICT OF THE COURT –

The Court, however, held that forcing an accused to give a voice sample violated neither Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. It said that the voice sample, like any other physical evidence taken in terms of fingerprints, handwriting, or blood samples, is not compulsion by way of testimony but is compulsion by way of physical characteristics, which is excluded from the protective cover of Article 20(3). It found that a voice sample is not violative of the right to privacy under Article 21, particularly, in the context of criminal investigation. It ruled that the intrusion into privacy is minimal and reasonable given the legitimate public interest in solving crimes. The Court relied on the doctrine of proportionality with the view that a voice sample to be taken for forensic comparison was a proportionate and reasonable restriction on privacy in the interest of effective law enforcement. While holding that no explicit statutory provision in the CrPC authorized the collection of voice samples, it drew resort to its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, whereby the court is empowered to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice. The Court decided, in the absence of pending legislation, that magistrates have the right to mandatorily take voice samples for criminal cases. Such a judgment dissipated the ambiguity that a magistrate can compel a person accused of a crime to undergo giving a voice sample as long as the proper procedure in the matter is followed according to the law.

CONCLUSION –

The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to furnish his voice sample does not violate articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also bridged the legislative void by extending power to the magistrates to issue an order directing the taking of a voice sample until Parliament enacts a clear statutory provision. This judgment was to balance individual rights with the arms required to ensure the investigation agencies were equipped with tools for investigation, adopted by modern forensic practices.

REFERENCES –

Prakash Singh, “Ritesh Sinha vs. State of U.P. & ANR, 2022”, LawFoyer, 24/09/2024 https://lawfoyer.in/ritesh-sinha-vs-state-of-u-p-anr/

“Ritesh Sinha vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 August, 2019”, Kanoon,24/09/2024 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18061439/

“Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr,2019”, NLU Delhi Center for communication Governance,24/09/2024

https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/ritesh-sinha-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-ors