LANDMARK CASE
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
AIR 1961 SC 1808 · Supreme Court of India · Evidence
At a glance
- Citation: AIR 1961 SC 1808
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Evidence
- In one line: No. Handwriting, signatures and fingerprints are not testimony, so Article 20(3) is not violated.
1 Facts
The accused was made to give handwriting samples during investigation.
2 Issue
Does this violate the right against self incrimination?
3 What the court decided
No. Handwriting, signatures and fingerprints are not testimony, so Article 20(3) is not violated.
4 Why it matters
It drew the line between testimony and physical evidence.
5 Think about it
How does Selvi apply this line?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Evidence
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
- Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1
- Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47
- Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
- Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← State of Bombay v. F.N. BalsaraState of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.