Obligated voice sampling: A judicial endorsement in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
By: Goswami, G.K. Aditi, Goswami
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Journal of The Indian Law Institute Description: 61(4), Oct-Dec, 2019: p. 455-462.
In:
Journal of The Indian Law InstituteSummary: The voiceprint is a potent forensic tool for speaker’s identification mainly used for corroboration to help in determination of culpability. Reference voice sample is required from a suspect for comparing the voice in question. The procedural laws in India are silent on the subject involving order by a court for providing voice sample a suspect without taking informed consent. In Ritesh Sinha case, the apex court, by using extraordinary powers under article 142 of the Indian Constitution, has made contingent arrangement to empower a magistrate in this regard till the Parliament enacts the law. The court verdict has dealt with several significant issues related to self-incrimination and power of a court in expanding the scope of law in absence of unequivocal legislative intent. – Reproduced
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 61(4), Oct-Dec, 2019: p. 455-462 | Available | AR123634 |
The voiceprint is a potent forensic tool for speaker’s identification mainly used for corroboration to help in determination of culpability. Reference voice sample is required from a suspect for comparing the voice in question. The procedural laws in India are silent on the subject involving order by a court for providing voice sample a suspect without taking informed consent. In Ritesh Sinha case, the apex court, by using extraordinary powers under article 142 of the Indian Constitution, has made contingent arrangement to empower a magistrate in this regard till the Parliament enacts the law. The court verdict has dealt with several significant issues related to self-incrimination and power of a court in expanding the scope of law in absence of unequivocal legislative intent. – Reproduced
There are no comments for this item.