Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
Checking relevance for Nandinisatpathy VS P. L. Dani...
Checking relevance for Ashok Daga VS Directorate Of Enforcement (FOR ADMISSION and I. R. )...
Checking relevance for S. P. Gupta: V. M. Tarkunde: J. L. Kalra: Iqbal M. Chagla: Lily Thomas: A. Rajappa: Union Of India: D. N. Pandey: R. Prasad Sinha VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Shivshankar: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Subramanian: Union Of India: K. B. N. Singh...
Checking relevance for Rahul Agarwal VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for KARTAR SINGH VS State Of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Rajeev Kumar Khanna, S/O Late Shri Lajpat Rai Khanna VS Central Bureau Of Investigation ACB...
Checking relevance for Banamali Choudhury @ Banamali Chaudhuri VS State of West Bengal...
2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1415 : The collection of blood/hair samples from an accused during investigation does not violate the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as such collection constitutes physical evidence, not testimonial evidence. This principle was affirmed in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961 SCC OnLine SC 74), and further supported by the Law Commission''''s 37th and 41st Reports, leading to the amendment of Section 53 of the CrPC to include medical examination for DNA profiling. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And Anr. vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 emphasized that the right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to compelling state interests like crime prevention. The Court held that a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, such as compulsory drawing of blood/hair samples under Section 53 CrPC, does not breach the right to privacy. Moreover, the failure of the investigating agency to use statutory powers to compel sample collection does not justify invoking adverse inferences under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against the accused.Checking relevance for Thankappan V. E, S/o. Ittankochu VS State Of Kerala...
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 674 : The collection of blood samples from an accused does not amount to testimonial compulsion or violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The power of a competent criminal court to direct an accused to subject themselves to a blood test is legally permissible under Section 53 of the CrPC read with Explanation (a), and this power can be exercised even after the filing of the final report, provided the case involves appropriate facts. The accused cannot dictate terms during investigation or further investigation, and such collection of material evidence is not an infringement of the right against self-incrimination.Checking relevance for Aboobakkar @ Abu VS State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor...
Checking relevance for Badri Prasad Meena Son of Shri Moola Meena VS Central Bureau of Investigation through PP...
Checking relevance for COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS CALCUTTA MOTOR AND CYCLE CO. ...
Checking relevance for M. P. Sharma, Others. VS Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi...
Checking relevance for V. S. Kuttan Pillai VS Ramakrishnan...
Checking relevance for Prabha Shankar Dubey VS State Of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for Sunder VS State Of Haryana...
Checking relevance for NEERAJ SHARMA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH...
1992 0 Supreme(All) 748 : The collection of a blood sample from an accused does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The court held that such evidence is admissible even if the examination is compulsory and imposed against the accused''''s will, provided the accused is not compelled to answer any questions during the process. The principle is that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion—i.e., requiring the accused to make oral or written statements that involve their consciousness of facts. Physical evidence such as blood samples, which are obtained through a physical examination and do not depend on the accused’s testimony, are not considered testimonial and thus fall outside the scope of the privilege. This is consistent with the general rule that the admission of results from a scientific examination of substances taken from the body of the accused does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination, especially when the examination does not amount to a physical invasion of the body in violation of due process.Checking relevance for Natvarlal Amarshibhai Devani VS State Of Gujarat...
2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 224 : The collection of a blood sample from an accused does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects against self-incrimination. According to the legal analysis in the document, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not preclude the admission of real evidence produced by a reasonable examination of the body, including the taking of a blood sample, even if done compulsorily. The document cites American jurisprudence, including State v. Green and Davis v. State, to support the principle that such evidence is admissible because it is not testimonial in nature. The key distinction is that the privilege applies only to testimonial compulsion—i.e., evidence that involves the accused''''s consciousness or mental operation in expressing facts—whereas physical evidence like blood samples, obtained without violating due process, is not covered by the privilege. Therefore, the collection of a blood sample for scientific analysis is not a violation of the right against self-incrimination.Checking relevance for Prakash Kapadia - President of Jagega Gujarat Sangharsh VS Commissioner of Police (Ahmedabad City)...
2012 0 Supreme(Guj) 742 : The document states that while the right against self-incrimination protects an accused from being compelled to incriminate themselves, there are exceptions. Specifically, an accused can be compelled to submit to certain investigative procedures such as allowing their blood sample to be tested, as well as providing voice recordings, photographs, and bodily materials for DNA testing. This directly addresses the user''''s query about the right against self-incrimination and blood sample collection by confirming that blood sample collection is an exception to the right against self-incrimination under Indian law.
