Supreme Court Modifies Delhi High Court Order in Sudhir Chaudhary’s Criminal Appeal
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi), addressing issues related to the admissibility of voice samples in criminal investigations. The judgment, delivered on July 29, 2016, modified an earlier Delhi High Court ruling, ensuring a fair and balanced process for obtaining voice samples from the accused while maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 240 of 2012) registered at the Crime Branch, New Delhi, on a complaint filed by Rajiv Bhadauria of Jindal Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. The complaint alleged that the appellants had demanded money in exchange for not airing investigative reports on a news channel regarding alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The FIR accused the appellants of offenses under Sections 384, 511, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Key Developments
1. Arrest and Initial Investigation
The appellants, including prominent journalists, were arrested on November 27, 2012. On December 10, 2012, the investigating officer sought permission from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) to obtain their voice samples at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL-CBI) to compare with a sting operation recording.
2. Consent for Voice Samples
The appellants initially consented to providing their voice samples, and the ACMM directed the investigating officer to set a date, time, and place for collection. However, when the appellants appeared to provide the samples on December 21, 2012, they objected to reading out certain text excerpts, arguing that they contained inculpatory material.
3. Legal Challenge
Following their objection, the appellants moved an application requesting a neutral text for the voice sample, ensuring that it did not contain self-incriminating material. The ACMM denied their request on February 4, 2013, stating that once consent was granted, the accused could not dictate the investigation process. The appellants filed a criminal revision against this order, which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments by the Appellants
- The text given for the voice sample included inculpatory statements, violating their rights under Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
- While they had consented to providing a voice sample, they did not consent to reading out self-incriminating material.
- The process must be fair and reasonable, in line with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- The text should not contain any direct sentences from the alleged sting operation recordings.
Arguments by the Respondent (State)
- The purpose of a voice sample is to compare it with a recorded conversation, not to serve as substantive evidence.
- The accused cannot dictate how the investigation should proceed.
- A voice sample is a form of identification data, similar to fingerprints, and does not constitute testimonial evidence.
- Some level of commonality between the sample text and the questioned conversation is necessary for accurate forensic analysis.
Delhi High Court’s Ruling
The Delhi High Court, on February 11, 2015, upheld the ACMM’s decision, ruling that:
- A voice sample is not a form of testimony but rather an identification tool.
- Once consent is given, the accused cannot impose conditions on how the sample should be taken.
- There was no coercion involved, as the appellants had voluntarily agreed to provide the voice samples.
- Since a forensic comparison requires some overlap in words, the investigating officer’s approach was justified.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the voice sample collection process adhered to the principles of fairness and due process under Article 21. The Court made the following key observations:
1. Right Against Self-Incrimination
The Court reaffirmed that while voice samples themselves do not constitute testimonial evidence, the process must not force the accused to read directly from inculpatory material. Any procedure that compromises this principle would be unfair.
2. Need for a Balanced Approach
The Court acknowledged that forensic examination requires some commonality in words between the sample and the questioned recording. However, it emphasized that this should not amount to coercion or create an unfair disadvantage for the accused.
3. Forensic Expert’s Role
To ensure a fair process, the Court directed that forensic experts prepare a text that includes words from the questioned conversation but avoids full inculpatory sentences.
Supreme Court’s Final Directions
The Supreme Court modified the Delhi High Court’s ruling and issued the following directions:
- The text to be read by the accused for the voice sample should not contain full inculpatory sentences but can include words from the questioned recording.
- The forensic experts at CFSL-CBI were tasked with preparing a suitable sample text that meets scientific requirements.
- The voice samples should be collected at CFSL in a controlled environment to prevent any manipulation.
- The process should be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness to the accused while allowing effective forensic comparison.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) strikes a balance between investigative needs and constitutional protections. While voice samples are crucial for forensic analysis, the ruling ensures that their collection does not violate fundamental rights. The judgment sets a critical precedent in criminal investigations involving forensic evidence and reinforces the necessity of fairness in legal procedures.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Sudhir Chaudhary & O vs State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-07-2016-1741873417555.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Cyber Crimes
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by T.S. Thakur
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
