https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277451 The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was held to cover only testimonial compulsion, so taking thumb, finger and palm impressions from an accused did not offend Article 20(3). Recoveries were admissible where information supplied by an accused in custody led to discovery of facts, and the fact that other accused persons were also questioned did not by itself vitiate the discovery. On the evidence, Mehtab Singh's possession of stolen property and arms was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so his convictions were set aside and he was acquitted, while Pokhar Singh's recoveries, possession and involvement were sufficiently established and his convictions were upheld. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:53:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277451 The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was held to cover only testimonial compulsion, so taking thumb, finger and palm impressions from an accused did not offend Article 20(3). Recoveries were admissible where information supplied by an accused in custody led to discovery of facts, and the fact that other accused persons were also questioned did not by itself vitiate the discovery. On the evidence, Mehtab Singh's possession of stolen property and arms was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so his convictions were set aside and he was acquitted, while Pokhar Singh's recoveries, possession and involvement were sufficiently established and his convictions were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277451