New Delhi, Oct. 14 -- The Supreme Court on Monday held that a court can direct not only an accused but even a witness to furnish a voice sample if it is required for the purpose of criminal investigation. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the act of giving a voice sample does not amount to "self-incrimination" and falls within the same category as providing a fingerprint, handwriting or signature specimen. The court set aside a Calcutta high court order that had refused permission to collect the voice sample of a witness, holding that the issue was already settled in the 2019 judgment of Ritesh Sinha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, where a three-judge bench recognised a magistrate's power to order such sampling. "The high court has entertained a purely academic question already covered by a binding precedent of this court," noted the bench, adding that the high court had incorrectly relied on a reference made to a larger bench - a reference that had since been "closed unceremoniously, on default". Reaffirming the legal principle laid down in Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) and Ritesh Sinha (2019), the top court said providing a voice sample does not constitute testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being forced to be a witness against themselves. "It has to be noticed that Article 20(3) does not say that an accused person shall not be compelled to be a witness - it says he shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself," the court said. "A specimen's handwriting or finger impression by itself is no testimony at all. They are only materials for comparison," it added. The case arose from a probe into the death of a 25-year-old woman in February 2021, which led to allegations of harassment by her husband's family and counter-allegations of misappropriation of jewellery and cash by her parents....