The historic case of state of bombay v kathi kalu established the parameters of testifying against oneself. The concept of “becoming a witness against oneself” was restricted to information provided by the individual. The Supreme Court ruled in Oghad that the provision of physical specimens, such as fingerprints, was categorically excluded from the protection of article 20 3 of the indian constitution. The most crucial privilege of an accused person is the prohibition against self incrimination.
Many important pieces of data are stored on personal electronic devices these days. With the development of technology, fingerprints and facial recognition are increasingly used to access personal electronic devices. This creates new difficulties for criminal investigations and evidence collection from the accused’s device.
state of bombay v kathi kalu Case Facts
- In the first case, the respondent was charged under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide by causing the death of someone other than the person whose death was intended. This provision is related to section 34 of the ipc, which deals with acts committed by many people in pursuit of a single objective. His handwriting samples were one of the pieces of evidence introduced at the trial stage to help the prosecution of the defendant. The admissibility of these samples was questioned in light of the protections afforded by Article 20 (3). The respondent had contended that the deputy superintendent of police had physically taken the handwriting samples from him. Nevertheless, neither the trial court nor the high court accepted this pleading. However, the handwriting samples were not included in the evidence because the police custody of the respondent itself was the reason for the compulsion.
- In the second case, which concerned “Section 27” of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the police sought to introduce the accused’s hand and finger prints as evidence, provided that they matched those found on the guns at the crime scene, after learning from the accused about the gun he had buried at a specific location. The evidence and the provision’s constitutionality were contested.
- In the third case, the police searched the respondent’s home in an attempt to obtain proof of the illicit trafficking of opium that had been brought in. During their search, the police discovered some railway receipts with endorsements for opium consignments on the back of them. The endorsements’ handwriting was recognized by the police as belonging to the accused. Thus, in accordance with section 73 of the iea, 1872, handwriting samples were collected in order to compare with the main exhibit. The Indian Constitution’s “Article-20(3)” was violated, and the High Court ignored this.
state of bombay v kathi kalu Issues
- If under tremendous duress such specimens were brought into police custody?
- If section 73 of the iea requirement that an accused individual present in court produce his specimen writing and signature for comparison breaches the fundamental right outlined in article 20 3 of the indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The Union’s knowledgeable Attorney General As per his statement, an individual wishing to avail themselves of the clause’s protection must meet the second of the four requirements listed in Article 20:
- they must be an accused party;
- they must have been under duress;
- the duress must be to serve as a witness; and
- the duress must be directed towards themself.
- According to him, being asked to do anything by the police or having a court order you to provide a thumb impression or sample writing does not constitute compulsion; rather, compulsion involves coercion or restriction. Put differently, coercion needs to be connected to methods of obtaining confessions that have been referred to as “third degree.”
Respondent:
- In the first instance, Mr. S.P. Varma, representing the accused, contended that the accused is completely protected by the Constitution, irrespective of the date, time, and place of the accusation as well as the nature of the evidence, oral, documentary, or material.
- In line with his idea, any statement or finding made by the accused person should be regarded as conclusive evidence of that inferential fact, in addition to creating a rebuttable presumption that he was coerced into making it.
- He asserts that when the police or anyone else uses the word “compulsion,” it also refers to any kind of reward. In his view, the decisive factor is not the accused’s free will but rather the incriminating nature of the statement or communication. As a result, the Constitutional clause forbids saying anything to a police officer while they are being held.
state of bombay v kathi kalu Judgment
- A statement made by an accused person while in police custody does not prove that he was coerced into testifying against himself.
- Put otherwise, it would not be sufficient for the court to conclude that the accused was coerced into making the statement just because they were detained by the police at the time the contested statement was made.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
