Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. It appears that the trial is in progress and the evidence of 24 witnesses have been recorded by the trial court.

13. The trial court on 8.10.2014 passed an order that the voice samples of six accused persons, who are facing trial before it should be taken for examination with the audio CD Ex. Ka. 2 to fix their identity in the crime and further directed the prosecution to take necessary steps for the same.

14. A letter from the Deputy Director of Government Science Laboratory, Lucknow dated 18.10.2014 was received in the Court of Special Judge that the facility of voice testing is not available in the laboratory in the State of U.P. and had given the details of five laboratories of the Central Government from where the voice testing could be made. The Special Judge directed the D.G.C. (Crl.) to get the voice sample of accused and tested by taking necessary steps on which the A.D.G.C. (Crl.) on 11.11.2014 wrote a letter to the District Magistrate Farrukhabad for getting the voice sample recorded and further letters were also sent to the C.O. City Fatehgarh as well as Inspector-in Charge of police station Fatehgarh requesting them for getting the voice sample of the accused and tested with the voice recorded in audio C.D. Ex. Ka. 2. The Police officials on 3rd and 6th January, 2015 after making detailed enquiry sent letters to the A.D.G.C (Crl.) and further enclosing the letter of Dy. Director of Govt. Forensic Science Laboratory dated 18.10.2014 (annexure-7-A to the application) stating that no facility of testing voice sample is available in district Farrukhabad on which an application was moved by the prosecution on 7.1.2015 before the trial court which passed an order that there appears no reason to grant any further time for getting the voice sample and tested but to proceed with the trial. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the Special Judge/trial court.

20. In this context two important questions of law were formulated by the Apex Court in the Case of Ritesh Sinha vs. State of U.P. (Supra):-

(I) Whether Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, which protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his voice sample during the course of investigation into an offence?

(II) Assuming that there is no violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, whether in the absence of any provision in the Code, can a Magistrate authorize the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the person accused of an offence?

28. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently refuted the said argument of learned counsel for accused-opposite party no. 3 and argued that once the trial court has formed an opinion for getting the voice sample of the accused and be compared with the recorded audio C.D. Ex. Ka. 2 and it passed orders twice to that effect, i.e., on 8.10.2014 and 31.10.2014 respectively taking into account the nature of offence and the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the accused persons and in order to determine their complicity in the crime, the trial court had committed error in passing the impugned order rejecting the recording of voice sample of the accused for being sent to examination simply because the prosecuting agency has reported that there is no such facility in the district or in the State of U.P. for the same. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that in view of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the trial court has powers to pass orders for getting the voice sample of the accused recorded and be sent for testing with the recorded audio C.D. Ex. Ka. 2.

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.]"

31. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the voice recorded in the audio C.D. Ex. Ka. 2 is admissible under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, hence if the said evidence is to be proved by the prosecution then taking of voice sample of the accused by the trial court becomes essential to arrive at just decision of a case otherwise the said audio C.D. in which there is recording of conversation between the accused and applicant regarding demand of ransom of money for release of abductee/kidnapee would be a futile effort by the police to ascertain the complicity of the accused, hence the trial court was right in ordering to take voice sample of the accused persons. Hence, it appears from Section 165 of the Evidence Act that the trial Judge is empowered to order for taking of voice sample of accused for being compared to the recorded voice in audio C.D. Ex. Ka. 2 to ascertain the complicity of the accused persons in the present crime and once the trial court has ordered for the same it was not correct in dropping the idea for getting voice sample of the accused be taken and send for testing simply because of lack of facility in the district as well as in the State for getting the voice sample tested, hence the impugned order passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the impugned order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the trial court is illegal and the orders dated 8.10.2014 and 31.10.2014 directing for taking of voice sample of accused persons was correct.