Court caseAIR 1961 SC 1808

Kathi Kalu Oghad was tried for murder. During investigation the police obtained specimen handwritings from him, which were compared with a chit found at the scene. The Bombay High Court excluded the specimens, relying on the wide language of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) that "to be a witness" means "to furnish evidence". The State appealed. Several connected appeals raised the same point about thumb impressions, signatures and palm prints taken from accused persons under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and section 73 of the Evidence Act.

An eleven-judge Bench (majority by Sinha CJ, with a partly separate opinion by Das Gupta J for three judges) held that "to be a witness" means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by oral or written statements, and is not the same as "furnishing evidence" in the widest sense. Giving thumb impressions, specimen handwriting, signatures, or showing parts of the body for identification is not "being a witness", because such material is not a communication based on personal knowledge; it is physical evidence whose value is intrinsic. M.P. Sharma's broad dictum was disapproved to that extent. The Court also held that the protection applies only to a person formally accused at the time, that compulsion must be shown, and that a statement made in police custody is not by itself compelled.