THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus KATHI KALU OGHAD AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus KATHI KALU OGHAD AND OTHERS

Compelling an accused person to give specimen handwriting or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or a court for the purposes of comparison does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Similarly, statements admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act do not infringe Article 20(3) unless compulsion is used in obtaining such information; compulsion is a question of fact and is not inherent by virtue of police custody alone.

Parties
Appellant: The State of Bombay; Respondents: Kathi Kalu Oghad and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1961
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (including Criminal Revision) / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgments of High Courts
Outcome
Appeals dismissed except to the extent of slight modification regarding the matter of casual-cum-sickness leave.
Legal Topics
Self Incrimination, Testimonial Compulsion, Police Investigation, Specimen Handwriting and Thumb Impressions, Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, Constitution of India Article 20(3)
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Self Incrimination Testimonial Compulsion Police Investigation Specimen Handwriting and Thumb Impressions Section 27 Indian Evidence Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State of Bombay

Appellant

Kathi Kalu Oghad and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (including Criminal Revision) / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgments of High Courts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compelling an accused person to give specimen handwriting or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether information obtained from an accused in police custody and admitted pursuant to Section 27 of the Evidence Act infringes Article 20(3) if compulsion is used.

Ratio Decidendi

Compelling an accused person to give specimen handwriting or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or a court for the purposes of comparison does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Similarly, statements admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act do not infringe Article 20(3) unless compulsion is used in obtaining such information; compulsion is a question of fact and is not inherent by virtue of police custody alone.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed except to the extent of slight modification regarding the matter of casual-cum-sickness leave.

Orders

  • No infringement of Article 20(3) by compelling specimen handwriting or impressions for comparison under Section 73, Evidence Act.
  • Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not offend Article 20(3) unless compulsion is proven in fact.