Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2025
The Court affirmed that Magistrates have the authority to direct the collection of voice samples from any person, including witnesses, for investigative purposes.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
15 October 2025
Judges
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The case arose from a 2021 incident involving the death of a young woman, leading to cross-allegations between her family and her in-laws.
-
During the investigation, the police alleged that a key witness (2nd respondent) acted as an agent for the deceased’s father and threatened another witness.
-
To verify the allegations, the Investigating Officer sought a voice sample from this witness for comparison with recorded conversations.
-
The Magistrate granted permission for collecting the voice sample.
-
The witness challenged the order before the Calcutta High Court, which set it aside, reasoning that the issue was pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
-
The State appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.
Issues
-
Whether a Magistrate has the authority to direct collection of voice samples from a witness, in addition to an accused person.
-
Whether directing such collection violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
-
Whether pendency of a reference before a larger bench can justify disregarding a prior Supreme Court precedent.
Held
- The appeal was allowed.
-
The Court affirmed that Magistrates have the authority to direct the collection of voice samples from any person, including witnesses, for investigative purposes.
-
Article 20(3) is not attracted, as providing a voice sample is not a testimonial compulsion.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed the precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019), where it was held that even in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, Magistrates possess implied authority to direct the taking of voice samples.
-
The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified that the term “person” used in Ritesh Sinha was intentional and not limited to the accused, thus encompassing witnesses as well.
-
The judgment relied on the reasoning from State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), which distinguished testimonial evidence (involving personal knowledge or communication) from physical/material evidence (like fingerprints or handwriting).
-
The Court emphasized that mere collection of a sample does not amount to self-incrimination; the comparison of that sample with material discovered during investigation might yield incriminating evidence, but the act of providing it is non-testimonial.
-
Importantly, the Court noted that Section 349 of the BNSS (2023) now explicitly provides statutory authority for obtaining such samples, thus removing any ambiguity that previously existed under the Cr.P.C.
-
The judgment also reiterated judicial discipline, holding that a High Court cannot disregard a binding Supreme Court precedent merely because a reference is pending before a larger bench.