Judgment

SINHA, C.J.I. : These appeals have been heard together only in so far as they involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, with particular reference to cl. (3) of Art. 20. This larger Bench was constituted in order to re-examine some of the propositions of law laid down by this Court in the case of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 SCR 1077 : because when one of these cases was heard by five of us, we felt that some of the propositions therein laid down may have been too widely stated, and therefore, required to be restated with more particularity. We have not heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the orders passed by the Courts below, but have confined the discussions at the Bar, in so far as they had any bearing on the questions of law relating to the interpretation of cl. (3) of Art. 20 of the Constitution.

2. It is not necessary to state in any detail the facts of each of the cases now before us. We shall, therefore, state only so much of the facts as have occasioned calling in aid of the provisions of cl. (3) of Art. 20 of the Constitution. In the first case, namely, Criminal appeal 146 of 1958, the State of Bombay is the appellant. The respondent was charged, along with another person, under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the I. P. C., as also under S. 19 (e) of the Indian Arms Act (XI) of 1878). The Trial Court found him guilty of those charges and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. and to a term of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under the Arms Act. At the trial the identification of the respondent, as one of the two alleged culprits, was the most important question to be decided by the Court. Besides other evidence, the prosecution adduced in evidence a chit-Ex. 5-alleged to be in his handwriting and said to have been given by him. In order to prove that Ex. 5 was in the handwriting of the respondent, the police had obtained from, him, during the investigation, three specimen handwritings of his on three separate sheets of paper which were marked as Exs. 27, 28 and 29. The disputed document, namely, Ex. 5 was compared with the admitted handwritings on Exs. 27, 28 and 29 by the Handwriting Expert whose evidence was to the effect that they are all writings by the same person. At the trial and in the High Court, the question as raised as to the admissibility of the specimen writings contained in Exs. 27, 28, and 29, in view of the provisions of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. It is an admitted fact that those specimen writings of the accused had been taken by the police while he was in police custody, but it was disputed whether the accused had been compelled to give those writings within the meaning of cl. (3) of Art. 20. The plea of the accused that he was forced by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to give those writings has not been accepted by the learned trial Judge. But those documents have been excluded from consideration, as inadmissible evidence, on the ground that though there was no, threat or force used by the police in obtaining those writings from the accused person, yet in the view of the Court "the element of compulsion was implicit in his being at that time in police custody". In this conclusion both the Trial Judge and the High Court have agreed. The identification of the accused person was also sought to be proved by the evidence of witnesses, who identified him at an identification parade. But the holding of the identification parade has not been sought to be brought within the prohibition of cl. (3) of Art. 20. After eliminating the Exs. 27, 28 and 29 from their consideration, the High Court, on a consideration of the other evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the identity of the respondent had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, giving him the benefit of doubt they acquitted him. The State of Bombay moved this Court and obtained special leave to ap