Skip to content
Sign inOpen the app
Artwork for Nyay Samachar
Nyay Samachar · Oct 30, 2025 · 6 min

Rahul Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2025 INSC 1223

Court’s decision sparks vital debate on the judiciary’s power to order voice samples from witnesses, not just accused persons. The Court firmly held that furnishing a voice sample is merely physical evidence and does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Key Takeaways: ✅ Magistrates can direct both accused and witnesses to provide voice samples. ✅ Voice sampling is material, not testimonial evidence; Article 20(3) protection does not apply. ✅ Section 349 BNSS (2023) now provides express statutory support. Statutes: ✅ Indian Constitution Article 20(3) ✅ Section 349 BNSS, 2023 Precedent: Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019 8 SCC 1) #SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #VoiceSample #Article20 #BNSS

0:00-6:01
Play in podnod

transcript

No transcript — this publisher did not publish one.

show notes

Court’s decision sparks vital debate on the judiciary’s power to order voice samples from witnesses, not just accused persons.

The Court firmly held that furnishing a voice sample is merely physical evidence and does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution.


Key Takeaways:

✅ Magistrates can direct both accused and witnesses to provide voice samples.

✅ Voice sampling is material, not testimonial evidence; Article 20(3) protection does not apply.

✅ Section 349 BNSS (2023) now provides express statutory support.


Statutes:

✅ Indian Constitution Article 20(3)

✅ Section 349 BNSS, 2023


Precedent: Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019 8 SCC 1)


#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #VoiceSample #Article20 #BNSS

more episodes

All episodes