Back
SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Abhijit Ankush Shelke – Appellant
Versus
Sau. Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shailesh P. Brahme, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides with their consent finally at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners are challenging order dated 14.02.2024 passed below Exhibit-114 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parner in Criminal M.A No. 75 of 2013, refusing to direct the Respondent to give her voice sample for referring it to authorize forensic laboratory for verification/identification of her recorded voice in compact disc and the memory card. The Respondents have instituted proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of ‘The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ (in short Act of 2005) against the Petitioners in Criminal M.A No. 75 of 2013 which are at the stage of arguments.
3. The controversy between the parties is over domestic violence. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 were married on 05.05.2009. Respondent No.2 is the son born out of the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial disputes, they are residing separately. Both of them are working as teachers. By way of defence petitioners have raised a plea that Respondent No.1 is having extra marital relations with one Mr. Sanjay Dalvi and he claims that the conversati
Voice sample is not evidence – There is no provision to compel the party to proceedings under Domestic Violence Act to give voice sample – Article 20(2) of Constitution of India cannot be made applic....
The court established that electronic evidence, including voice recordings, is admissible in domestic violence cases, and courts should utilize technological advancements to ensure justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of recorded conversation and the power of the Court to obtain voice samples of the witnesses under Section 91 of the CrPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a Judicial Magistrate to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime is not confined merely to ....
A Magistrate may order any person, not just an accused, to provide a voice sample if deemed necessary for proper investigation, as supported by Supreme Court precedent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the direction to give a voice sample did not violate the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, and the admissibility of e....
The right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest, and certification under Section 65-B of the Act is needed when the recording is to be produced in trial as evidence.
The court ruled that compelling voice samples for investigation does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The power of a judicial magistrate to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedur....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
