Legal Review and Analysis of Rahul Agarwal vs The State of West Bengal & Anr 2025 INSC 1223

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Rahul Agarwal vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1223
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: October 13, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): The Court affirmed that even in the absence of an explicit provision, a Magistrate has the inherent power to direct a person to provide a voice sample.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 349 of the BNSS, which explicitly empowers a Magistrate to direct any person to provide a voice sample.

• The Constitution of India: Article 20(3): The fundamental right which states that "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The judgment analyzes whether providing a voice sample violates this protection.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellant: Rahul Agarwal (the complainant).

• Respondents: The State of West Bengal & Another (the 2nd respondent was a witness whose voice sample was sought).

• Origin of Case: This Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court arose from a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court.

• Subject Matter: The legality of a Magistrate's order directing a witness (the 2nd respondent) to provide a voice sample for investigation purposes.

• Precedent Cases: The judgment primarily relies on:
  Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019) 8 SCC 1
  State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808

4. Core Principle of the Judgment

The Central Issue

Whether a Magistrate is legally empowered to direct a witness (not an accused) to provide a voice sample during an investigation, and whether such a direction violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

In-Depth Analysis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's direction for providing the voice sample. Its reasoning was structured around the following core pillars:

A. Clarifying the Legal Vacuum and Binding Precedent

The Court strongly criticized the High Court for refusing to follow the binding precedent set by a three-judge bench in Ritesh Sinha. The High Court had erroneously done so on the grounds that the issue was referred to a Larger Bench, even though that reference had been closed.

• The Ritesh Sinha Precedent: The Supreme Court reiterated the holding in Ritesh Sinha that despite the absence of an explicit provision in the Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate has the power to order "a person" to give a voice sample. The Court emphasized that the term "a person" was used consciously and includes both accused individuals and witnesses.

• Curing the Legislative Gap: The Ritesh Sinha judgment had served to fill this legislative gap until explicit provisions were made. This has now been codified under Section 349 of the BNSS, 2023.

B. The Constitutional Analysis: Voice Samples and Article 20(3)

The core of the legal analysis centered on whether compelling a voice sample amounts to "compelling a person to be a witness against himself."

• Application of the Kathi Kalu Oghad Principle: The Court applied the settled law from Kathi Kalu Oghad, which dealt with specimen handwriting, signatures, and fingerprints. It was held that such physical evidence belongs to a "third category of material evidence" which is outside the purview of "testimony."

• Voice Sample as Non-Testimonial Evidence: Following this logic, the Supreme Court classified a voice sample as akin to physical characteristics like fingerprints. Providing a voice sample is not considered "testimonial compulsion."
  The act of speaking for a sample does not by itself incriminate the person; it is a neutral piece of evidence.
  Incrimination only becomes a possibility later, when the sample is compared with other evidence discovered during the investigation. This subsequent comparison does not transform the initial act of providing the sample into a self-incriminatory testimony.

C. Resolving the Cr.P.C. vs. BNSS Applicability

The respondent had argued that the case was governed by the Cr.P.C., which lacked a specific provision for voice samples. The Supreme Court found this argument inconsequential.

• If Cr.P.C. Applies: The power of the Magistrate is directly derived from the binding ruling in Ritesh Sinha.

• If BNSS Applies: The power is explicitly provided under Section 349 of the BNSS.
  Therefore, regardless of which procedural code governed the case, the Magistrate was fully empowered to pass the order.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Rahul Agarwal.

• The impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

• The order of the Magistrate directing the 2nd respondent (the witness) to provide a voice sample was restored.

• The 2nd respondent was directed to act in accordance with the Magistrate's order.

6. Multiple Choice Questions  Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In the case of Rahul Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal (2025 INSC 1223), the Supreme Court held that compelling a person to provide a voice sample?

A) Is a direct violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution as it is a form of testimony.
B) Is permissible only if the person is formally an accused in the case.
C) Does not violate Article 20(3) as it is not considered "testimonial compulsion" but material evidence.
D) Can only be ordered under the explicit provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

C) Does not violate Article 20(3) as it is not considered "testimonial compulsion" but material evidence

Question 2: The Supreme Court based its decision primarily on the principle established in which earlier case, which drew an analogy between voice samples and physical evidence like fingerprints?

A) Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
B) State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad
C) Both A and B
D) Neither A nor B

C) Both A and B