SAIFUDDIN SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted that the petitioner had initially given voice sample for examination by the expert but as such report came to be inconclusive further voice samples of the petitioner has been sought for which he is unwilling to give. However, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to give such voice sample for examination by an expert. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be compelled to give voice sample in violation of Article 20 clause 3 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner earlier had given voice sample and therefore cannot raise the plea self - incrimination subsequently. No doubt the petitioner had initially given voice sample but the expert opinion thereon is inconclusive. It is open to the petitioner to voluntarily give further voice samples for examination but he cannot be forced to give such sample if he is unwilling to do so in view of the constitutional bar under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 21, 2015 to that extent is set aside.

(3.) The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed.