SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." [Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India]

(2.) THE above clause confers fundamental right on an accused. He cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. The petitioner submits that he is being asked to give his specimen signatures and also specimen handwriting. A criminal case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) stands registered against him and respondents No. 2 and 3. The Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, Guna is trying this case. During the trial one letter, exhibit P/2 was placed on the record by the prosecution. This letter is said to have been written by the present petitioner. The petitioner was asked to give his specimen signature and also specimen handwriting. It is this order passed on 4th of November, 1995, which is being impugned in the present revision.

(3.) THIS provision was considered by the Supreme Court of India in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Sharma, AIR 1954 SC 300. The Court examined the origin and scope of the doctrine of protection against self-incrimination with reference to English Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, with particular reference to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. On an examination of the Case Law in England and America and the standard text books on Evidence, like Phipson and Wigmore, and other authorities, the Court observed as follows:-