Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 30 March, 2026
CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
234
CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
Manoj alias Baba
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present:- Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
for respondent No.2.
****
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the earlier direction issued for recording of voice sample of the prosecutrix, has been rendered ineffective on the ground that she was not willing to furnish the same. The case is presently at the stage of defence evidence and the petitioner seeks to rely upon certain call recordings, the authenticity of which, according to him, can only be established through comparison with the voice sample of the prosecutrix.
2. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 12.10.2023, the learned trial Court had allowed the application moved by the petitioner and directed SATYAWAN 2026.03.30 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M) 2 the prosecutrix to furnish her voice sample before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban at Karnal, Haryana. It is also a matter of record that during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix had denied that the voice in the recordings was her own. However, when the learned trial Court, upon due consideration, allowed the application and specifically directed her to furnish her voice sample for comparison, she declined to comply with the said direction. Subsequently, upon an application moved by the prosecution seeking consent of the prosecutrix, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 observing that since the prosecutrix was unwilling to give her voice sample and no case was made out to compel her, the earlier direction could not be enforced.
3. This Court further notes that despite service, the prosecutrix has chosen not to appear before this Court. In order to ensure fairness, a Legal Aid Counsel was appointed to represent her vide order dated 25.09.2025, however, the said counsel has reported inability to establish contact with her despite due efforts and has even placed a written communication on record in that regard. Consequently, the prosecutrix has failed to avail even effective legal representation before this Court.
4. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned trial Court is legally unsustainable. Once the Court had, upon due application of mind, found the collection of voice sample necessary for the just adjudication of the case, it could not have diluted or nullified its own order merely on account of the unwillingness of the prosecutrix. The administration of criminal justice cannot be rendered dependent upon the volition of a witness when the Court itself has found such evidence essential SATYAWAN 2026.03.30 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M) 3 for a fair adjudication.
5. The right of an accused to lead defence evidence is a valuable facet of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denial of an opportunity to produce material evidence, which may substantively support the defence, would cause serious prejudice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019(3) RCR(Criminal) 952 has categorically held that a Court is empowered to direct a person to furnish voice sample for the purposes of investigation and comparison and that such direction does not offend Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Voice-sample being physical evidence, its relevance and admissibility are well recognized under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6. The conduct of the prosecutrix, as borne out from the record, assumes significance. During her cross-examination, she denied that the voice in the recordings was her own. Thereafter, when the learned trial Court, upon due consideration, allowed the application and specifically directed her to furnish her voice sample for comparison she declined to comply with the same. She having been afforded an opportunity to scientifically ascertain the truth, chose not to cooperate with the process directed by the Court itself.
7. It is also noteworthy that despite service, the prosecutrix has not appeared before this Court. In order to ensure fairness, a Legal Aid Counsel was appointed to represent her; however, the said counsel has reported inability to establish contact with her despite due efforts and has even placed a written communication on record in that regard. Consequently, the prosecutrix has failed to avail even effective legal SATYAWAN 2026.03.30 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M) 4 representation before this Court.
8. Such conduct, if permitted to continue, would impede the course of justice and frustrate the right of the accused to a fair opportunity to establish his defence. While the dignity and autonomy of the prosecutrix remain of paramount importance, the judicial process cannot be rendered ineffective on account of deliberate non-cooperation, particularly where the Court has already found the evidence sought to be relevant and necessary for a just adjudication of the case.
9. At the same time, this Court is mindful of the need to balance the dignity and autonomy of the prosecutrix. Therefore, a balanced approach is required, whereby an opportunity is afforded to her, while ensuring that the proceedings are not rendered interminable.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The earlier order dated 12.10.2023 directing the prosecutrix to furnish her voice sample is restored. The learned trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the prosecutrix to appear and give her voice sample before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban at Karnal, Haryana, in a manner ensuring dignity, privacy and minimal inconvenience, preferably in the presence of a lady officer.
11. It is further directed that in the event the prosecutrix again fails to appear or refuses to furnish her voice sample without sufficient cause, the learned trial Court shall not keep the matter pending and shall be at liberty to proceed further with the trial in accordance with law. In such eventuality, the trial Court may also draw such inference as may be SATYAWAN 2026.03.30 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6123-2024 (O&M) 5 permissible in law, keeping in view the conduct of the prosecutrix.
12. The learned trial Court shall ensure that the proceedings are carried forward expeditiously and are not delayed on account of non- cooperation of any party.
13. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
14. Petition stands disposed of in abovesaid terms.
(NEERJA K. KALSON)
30.03.2026 JUDGE
Satyawan
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SATYAWAN
2026.03.30 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document