Summary
A direction to provide physical impressions for identification or corroboration does not violate Article 20(3). Refusal may support an adverse inference but cannot alone sustain conviction. The prosecution nevertheless failed to connect this accused with the killings through a complete chain of circumstances, so the High Court’s acquittal was upheld.
Issues
- Whether compelled physical impressions violate Article 20(3) and refusal can sustain conviction.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established this respondent’s guilt.
Provisions considered
- Article 20(3), Constitution of IndiaPhysical identification impressions are distinct from protected compelled personal testimony. (¶ 8–12)
Held
- An accused can be directed to give footprints for corroboration. Non-compliance may justify an adverse inference, but that inference cannot be the sole basis of conviction. (¶ 9–12)
- Each circumstance must be independently proved and the chain complete. Recovery alone could not sustain conviction where the prosecution failed to connect the respondent to the incident. (¶ 13–16)
Result
State and complainant appeals dismissed; High Court’s acquittal upheld.