Y RANGANADH GOUD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 506 IPC in Crime No. 122 of 2009 of Ponnur Town Police Station. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla filed petition Criminal M.P. No. 3250 of 2010 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnur under Section 173 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to record original voice of the petitioner/A-1 and the victim before the court for forwarding the same to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison with a Compact Disc (CD) allegedly containing voices/conversations of A-1 and the victim recorded by cell phone. This petition was opposed by A-1. The lower court by the impugned order dated 24.06.2010 allowed the petition permitting to record original voices of A-1 and the victim in open court and fixed a date. As against the said order, A-1 filed the present revision petition.

(2.) Main contention put forward by the petitioner's counsel in this revision petition is that directing A-1 to give sample voice for the purpose of comparison of the same with his alleged voice contained in a C.D, offends A-1's fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and that therefore, the lower court should not have passed the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel placed reliance on Vinod Kumar v. The State, 1981 CrLJ 927 of the Delhi High Court and H. Chandrashekhar v. Shafiq Ali Khan,2001 1 CCC 453 of the Karnataka High Court in this regard. In the former decision, the Delhi High Court held that there is nothing in the Evidence Act which even remotely suggests that the court has power to call upon a prosecution witness to get his sample voice recorded for comparison with his disputed tape recorded voices and that neither Section 73 of the Evidence Act provides for recording of sample voice for comparison nor under Section 45 of the said Act, evidence of an expert on comparison of sample voice with disputed one has been made admissible. The Delhi High Court further held that even the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct the trial court to do so. In the latter decision, the Karnataka High Court held that no person can be compelled to give his voice to be tested in comparison of voice already recorded, following the view taken by the Delhi High Court.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel also placed reliance on State v. Taylor,213 SCT 330 :, 49 SE 2nd 289 wherein it was held that to compel a suspect while in custody and prior to his trial, to speak the very words a witness heard the offender speaking at the time of the offence, so as to enable the witness to compare the voice of the suspect with that of the offender and thereby, if possible, to identify the suspect, as being the offender, and to admit in evidence at his trial on identification, is violative of his privilege against of 'self-incrimination'.