Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal: A Landmark on Voice Sampling: Self-Incrimination and Voice Evidence: What the Supreme Court Just Clarified

 Summary of the Supreme Court of India's judgment in Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025):

Case Summary

  • Background: A 25-year-old woman died in 2021, leading to allegations of harassment and counterclaims of misappropriation by her family. A cousin of the husband filed a police complaint, implicating the deceased’s father and mother. The second respondent allegedly threatened a witness and was asked to provide a voice sample for investigation.

  • Legal Issue: The Magistrate allowed the collection of the voice sample, but the High Court overturned it, citing a pending reference to a Larger Bench regarding the legality of such orders under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

  • Supreme Court’s Ruling:

    • The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), which held that Magistrates can order voice samples even without explicit provisions in Cr.P.C.

    • It emphasized that such samples do not violate Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination), referencing State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961).

    • The Court noted that the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 now explicitly allows such orders under Section 349.

    • It clarified that the reference to the Larger Bench had been closed and was not applicable.

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Magistrate’s directive for the second respondent to provide a voice sample.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 –SHORT-NOTE AND CHAPTER-WISE MCQ