Smt. Chittimilla Aruna vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 794 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                       Crl.R.C.No.316 OF 2022

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated

23.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.242 of 2021 in Cr.No.115 of 2020 (P.S.

Yellareddy), on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Kamareddy,

wherein the trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the

prosecution for fixing a date and issuing summons in order to

direct the accused person Smt. Chittimilla Aruna to attend at

Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL), Hyderabad

for comparison of alleged voice with that of her voice.

2. It is the specific contention of the accused that the trial Court

ought not have allowed the criminal petition directing the accused

to give voice sample on 02.03.2022 at 10:30 a.m. before TSFSL as

it is in violation of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. It is the

further contention of the accused that a detailed counter was filed

before the trial Court contending that there is no specific provision

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022

under Cr.P.C and further the respondent never admitted the alleged

voice and as such, the voice sample cannot be obtained.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the

record.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner that voice sample cannot be obtained and in

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court reported in Smt Rayalla M. Bhuvaneswari v.

Nagaphanender Rayalla1, wherein it is held that tapes, even if true

cannot be admissible in evidence and if the tapes are not admissible

in evidence, there is no question of forcing the petitioner to

undergo voice test and then ask the expert to compare the portions

denied by her with her admitted voice. He contended that once

herself had denied her voice, the Court cannot compel the

party/petitioner to give her voice sample for comparison and it is in

violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

AIR 2008 AP 98

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that collection of voice sample of the party by the

Investigating Agency is not at all in violation of 20(3) of the

Constitution of India and in support of his contention, he relied on

the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Ritesh Sinha vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.A.No.2003 of 2012) and prayed to dismiss

the petition.

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that on 01.06.2020, the

de facto complainant had preferred a complaint to P.S., Yellareddy

contending that while he was incharge of Congress Party of

Yellareddy Assembly Constituency, on 31.05.2020 at 3:00 p.m.,

the accused made a phone call to one Takesh, incharge of Gopalpet

Congress Party and stated to the complainant that he has sold the

party tickets in the last Municipality Elections and abused the

complainant in most filthy language and insulted him by taking

personal issues, for which he sought legal action.

7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

collected CD which contained voice of the accused (alleged

recorded voice of the accused) and also collected CDR data. In

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022

order to compare the said voices, the prosecution has filed the

present petition before the Court.

8. The trial Court also considered the ratio and propositions

laid down in Ritesh Sinha's case (supra) wherein it was held that

direction to take voice sample of the accused does not

infringe/violate rights of the accused under Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India and it can be obtained by the Investigating

Agency or the police when Magistrate directs to do so and gave a

finding that Magistrate is empowered to pass orders for getting the

voice sample of the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court fixed the

schedule date on 02.03.2022. It is relevant to mention that the trial

Court has also relied on the judgments of High Court of Madhya

Pradesh reported in R.K.Akhande vs. Spl.Police Establishment2

and High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kamalpal and another

vs. State of Punjab3, wherein both the Courts have come to a

conclusion that the accused who is judicially directed to give voice

sample for the purpose of enquiry or comparison purpose do not

infringe the right to privacy.

Manu/MP/0663/2021

Manu/PH/0682/2021

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022

9. On perusal of the orders of the Magistrate, this Court is of

the considered view that basing on the judgment of the Apex Court

and also on the propositions laid down by different High Courts,

the Magistrate has rightly opined that it is just and necessary for the

police/prosecution to have the voice sample of the accused, in order

to compare the same with that of the alleged voice sample in the

CDR's and accordingly fixed the schedule date for collecting the

voice sample of the accused. Thus, there is no error or irregularity

in the orders passed by the trial Court.

10. In view of the above discussion, there is no necessity for this

Court to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, as devoid of

merits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 15.02.2023 dv