Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11114

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Chandra Prakash Shrimali, J
Neha Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7274/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pankaj Gupta, Peush Nag
For the Respondents: Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Suresh Kumar Sahni, Ram Mohan Sharma, Ankit Agrawal

A Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct a person to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison, as this does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Such procedural measures are consistent with the principles of a fair trial, allowing for the verification of audio evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section 528 (equivalent to Section 482 of CrPC) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311A - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8, 45, 145, 146, 155(3) - Indian Constitution - Article 20(3) - Admissibility of voice samples - Power of Magistrate to direct voice samples during cross-examination - Protection against self-incrimination.

(B) Evidence - Tape-recorded statement - Admissibility and relevance - Requirements for reliability include identification of voice, accuracy of recording, absence of tampering, relevance, secure custody, and clarity - Determination of tampering or forgery is a question of fact to be decided during trial after expert examination or forensic analysis. (Paras 32 of cited judgment)

(C) Fair Trial - Right of the accused to bring evidence - Cross-examination as to previous statements - Right to confront witnesses with audio evidence - A party can use material for confrontation during cross-examination to challenge credibility without prior inclusion in the list of witnesses. (Paras 17, 18, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the trial court which allowed the application of the respondents to obtain a voice sample of a witness and send it to a forensic science laboratory for comparison with certain recorded audio material. The recording was presented by the respondents during the cross-examination of the witness to challenge the allegations of dowry demands. The petitioner argued that the recording was tampered with, that the application was delayed, and that compelling a witness to provide a voice sample violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the right to privacy.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Magistrate possesses the power to order the collection of voice samples for the purpose of investigating a crime or conducting proceedings, and this application is not restricted solely to the accused. The court determined that such procedural measures do not constitute testimonial compulsion prohibited under the Constitution, as the sample itself is neutral and needs to be compared with other forensic evidence.

Issues: Whether a court can direct a witness to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison during cross-examination and whether such a direction violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compelling a person to provide a voice sample for the purpose of comparison with disputed audio evidence does not violate the protection against self-incrimination or privacy rights. It is an essential part of a fair trial that the defense be allowed to confront witnesses using relevant digital evidence, and the determination of the authenticity or tampering of such evidence is a matter to be adjudicated during the trial after a thorough evaluation by the court and expert forensic analysis.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - A Judicial Magistrate can order any person, including an accused, to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison under Section 349 of BNSS and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (!) (!) . - Such an order does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution as voice sample collection is not testimonial compulsion and is permissible for investigation (!) (!) . - A Magistrate must ensure the recording's reliability, including identifying the voice, verifying accuracy, confirming no tampering, and maintaining secure custody for admissibility (!) . - The accused has the right to confront witnesses and use voice evidence for cross-examination during the trial (!) (!) . - The power to order voice samples applies to investigations and proceedings, not restricted to the accused alone (!) (!) .

What is the scope of a Judicial Magistrate's power to order a person to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison?

Whether compelling a witness to provide a voice sample violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

What are the requirements for admissibility of tape-recorded statements as evidence?

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding the voice sample application in a criminal trial. (Para 5 , 6)
2. arguments concerning the right to fair trial and the admissibility of electronic evidence. (Para 8 , 9)

1. Arguments Concluded On:	01/04/2026
2. Judgment Reserved On:	01/04/2026
3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced:	Full Judgment
4. Pronounced On:	10.04.2026

;kph@ifjokfn;k dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk v arxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk fof'k"B vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV

¼ih-lh-ih-,u-Mh-Vh-½ vtesj }kjk izdj.k la[;k 749@2020 jkT; cuke lq/kk a'kq o vU; es a ikfjr vkns'k fnuk ad 19-10-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gSA ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{kh ihMCY; w 1 xksiky d`".k vxzoky] ,MoksdsV ds okW;l lSaiy vkSj ,Q-,l-,y- ¼fo'ks"kK tk ap½ gsrq izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 ls 6@vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnuk ad 26-09-2024 Lohdkj fd;k gSA

;kph@ifjokfn;k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd ;kph@ifjokfn;k us izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 laq/kk a'kq xks;y ds lkFk fnuk ad 19-02-2019 dks vtesj es a fganq jhfr&fjokt ds lkFk fookg fd;k Fkk vkSj fookg ls iwoZ fnuk ad 12-09-2018 dks ^^jksdk** dk dk;Zdze gqvk FkkA fookg ds le; vkSj mlds i'pkr izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ngst dh voS/k ek ax dh xbZ] ftudh iwfrZ ugh a gksus ij izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us fnuk ad 07-09-2019 dks vtesj es a jksM ij ;kph@ifjokfn;k dks NksM+ fn;k vkSj ngst dh ek ax ds fy, izrkfM+r fd;k] ftl ij ;kph@ifjokfn;k us iqfyl v/kh{kd vtesj ds le{k fnuk ad 06-03-2020 dks ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ izLrqr dhA ftl ij iqfyl v/kh{kd vtesj us iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk vtesj dks mDr fjiksVZ izsf"kr dh] ftl ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 40@2020 v arxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkkjrh; n aM lafgrk vkSj /kkjk 3 ngst fu"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ds v arxZr izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) ntZ gqbZA iqfyl us vuqla/kku ds i'pkr izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) vkjksi i= izLrqr dj fn;kA ;kph@ifjokfn;k ds firk ihMCY; w 1 Jh xksiky d`".k vxzoky ds izfrijh{kk ds Lrj ij izdj.k yafcr gSA izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk vuko';d :i ls izdj.k dks foyafcr fd;k tk jgk Fkk] ftlds lanHkZ es a bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k 582@2022 vkns'k fnuk ad 31-01-2022 ds ek/;e ls izdj.k dks fuf'pr le; es a fuLrkfjr fd, tkus dk vkns'k fd;k x;k ijarq mlds i'pkr Hkh izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us 34 volj rd lk{kh ihMCY; w 1 Jh xksiky d`".k vxzoky dh izfrijh{kk yafcr j[khA mDr lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us lk{kh ihMCY; w 1 Jh xksiky d`".k vxzoky ls mudh vkokt dk uewuk ysus o mDr uewus dk ,Q-,l-,y tk ap gsrq Hkstus rFkk dfFkr eksckby fjdkWfMZax dks fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks lqukus ds fy, ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr eksckby fjdkWfMZax fnuk ad 09-09-2019 rFkk fnuk ad 22-09-2019 dh gS] ftldks izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us u rks vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k u gh o"kZ 2022 es a vkjksi fojpuk ds le; fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k FkkA mDr fjdkWfMZax dh dksbZ izfr vkSj u gh mldh Vªk alfdzIV fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk ihMCY; w 1 xksiky d`".k vxzoky rFkk ;kph@ifjokfn;k dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZA mDr fjdkWfMZax dh Vªk alfLdzIV o isuMªkbo Hkh dksbZ lhy iSdsV es a ;k lhy voLFkk es a fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugh a dh xbZA mDr fjdkWfMZax es a ;kph@ifjokfn;k ds firk ihMCY; w 1 Jh xksiky d`".k vxzoky us viuh vkokt gksuk ugh a crk;k gSA fQj Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{kh ihMCY; w 1 xksiky d`".k vxzoky ds okW;l lSaiy fy, tkus o mldks ,Q,l,y es a Hksts tkus ds vkns'k nsdj fof/kd Hk wy o =qfV dh gSA fnuk ad 05-11-2019 dks izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us viuk tokc izLrqr fd;k Fkk rFkk tokc es a Hkh bl izdkj dh dksbZ fjdkWfMZax gksuk mUgks aus ugh a crk;k gSA ;fn mDr vkokt ihMCY; w 1 Jh xksiky d`".k vxzoky dh vkokt gksrh rks vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ;k vkjksi i= ds le; izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k mDr okW;l fjdkWfMZax o Vªk alfLdzIV dks izLrqr djrs] tks muds }kjk izLrqr ugh a dh xbZ gSA izR;FkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us nksuks a i{kks a ds e/; okrkZ 11%00 ,-,e- ls 4%00 ih-,e- ds chp gksuk crkbZ gSA tcfd dksVZ es a mDr fjdkWfMZax 1 ?k aVk 11 feuV vkSj 21 lsds aM dh crkbZ gSA ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11114

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)Chandra Prakash Shrimali, JNeha Agrawal – AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7274/2024

What is the scope of a Judicial Magistrate's power to order a person to provide a voice sample for forensic comparison?

Whether compelling a witness to provide a voice sample violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

What are the requirements for admissibility of tape-recorded statements as evidence?

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Chandra Prakash Shrimali, J
Neha Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7274/2024