Rahul Agarwal V. The State of West Bengal (2025 SC)
- S.349 BNSS expressly empowers a Magistrate now, to direct any person to give voice samples for the purpose of investigation.
- SC reiterated Ritesh Sinha V. State of UP (2019 SC) and held that despite the absence of explicit provisions in CrPC, a Magistrate is empowered to direct any person to give voice samples. “Any person” includes the accused as well as witnesses. Article 20(3) is not violated.
- SC also referred to State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961 SC), where on a similar plea, it was held that handwriting, signature and finger impressions do not fall under “testimony” and are not oral/documentary evidence, but fall under a third category of material evidence. Hence, Article 20(3) is not violated.