https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169359 Article 20(3) protects an accused against compelled testimonial self-incrimination, but not against being required to provide physical characteristics such as specimen handwriting, signatures, or finger, palm or foot impressions. Mere police custody does not, by itself, establish compulsion; compulsion requires actual duress or coercion assessed on the surrounding facts. Information furnished by an accused in custody and proved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not barred in every case, because admissibility turns on whether the information was in fact compelled. Discovery evidence remains admissible where no actual compulsion is shown. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169359 Article 20(3) protects an accused against compelled testimonial self-incrimination, but not against being required to provide physical characteristics such as specimen handwriting, signatures, or finger, palm or foot impressions. Mere police custody does not, by itself, establish compulsion; compulsion requires actual duress or coercion assessed on the surrounding facts. Information furnished by an accused in custody and proved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not barred in every case, because admissibility turns on whether the information was in fact compelled. Discovery evidence remains admissible where no actual compulsion is shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169359