Specimen Handwriting and Fingerprints Do Not Violate Article 20(3): Supreme Court

The appeals raised questions on Article 20(3) (para 1). In the Bombay case, specimen handwritings taken from the accused by the police during investigation were used to prove a chit in his handwriting (para 2). In the Punjab burglary appeals, finger and palm impressions were taken before a Magistrate for comparison, and stolen guns were recovered on the accused's information (para 3). In the West Bengal opium case, the High Court had dealt with a Magistrate's order directing the accused to give specimen writing and signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act (para 4). The larger Bench was constituted to re-examine propositions in M.P. Sharma (para 1).

Sinha C.J., for eight Judges, agreed with M.P. Sharma that Article 20(3) covers oral testimony and written statements of an accused, in or out of court, but not its wider statement that "to be a witness" means to furnish evidence (para 7). To be a witness means "imparting knowledge in respect of relevant fact, by means of oral statements or statements in writing" (para 9). Specimen handwriting, signatures and finger impressions are unchangeable materials for comparison, not personal testimony (paras 9-10). The Constitution-makers could not have intended to obstruct effective investigation, and must be assumed to have known Section 73 and the Identification of Prisoners Act (para 8). Compulsion means duress (para 13); "the mere asking by a police officer investigating a crime against a certain individual to do a certain thing is not compulsion" (para 15). Mohamed Dastagir correctly held that the person must be an accused when the statement is made (paras 11-12). Das Gupta J., for three Judges, agreed with the result but differed on the meaning of "to be a witness" (para 36), and held that Section 27 does not necessarily infringe Article 20(3) (para 37).