Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fingerprints in Sapan Haldar & Anr. vs The State on 11 August, 2011Matching Fragments
47. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in the tabular form are as under which include the judgments of co- ordinate benches of this Court:
S.No. Title Matter in Judgments Relied On
Issue
1. Harpal Singh v. Specimen 1. Crl. Appeal No. 682/2008
State : Crl. Handwriting 'Santosh @ Bhure v. State'
Appeal No.
362/2008 2. Crl. Appeal No. 316.2008
'Neeraj v. State'
Wherein the following
Supreme Court Judgments
were relied upon:
(a) State of Bombay v. Kathi
Kalu Oghad and Ors:
1961CriLJ856
(b) State of U.P. v. Rambabu
Mishra: [1980]2SCR1067
(c) Sukhwinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab:
[1994]3SCR1061
2. Raj Kumar @ Sample Supreme Court Judgments
Raju Vs. The Fingerprints relied on:
State (G.N.C.T. of (1) State of U.P. v. Ram Babu
Delhi): Crl. A. No. Mishra, AIR 1980 SC 791
979/2005 (2) Sukhvinder Singh v. State
of Punjab, 1994 (5) SCC 152
3. Mehmood Ali Vs. Sample Supreme Court‟s Judgments
State: Crl. Appeal Fingerprints relied on:
No. 326/2007 (1) State of U.P. v. Ram Babu
Mishra, AIR 80 SC 791
(2) Sukhvinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1994
(5) SCC 152 and
(3) State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4377
4. Ashok Kumar @ Sample Judgment relied on:
Govind Vs. State Fingerprint (1) Crl. Appeal No. 682/2008
[Alongwith Crl.A. 'Santosh @Bhure v. State'
Nos. 275, 397, Wherein the following
398, 410 and Supreme Court Judgments
601/2007]: were relied upon:
2010CriLJ2329, (a) State of Bombay v. Kathi
159(2009)DLT383 Kalu Oghad and Ors:
1961Cri. L.J. 856
(b) State of U.P. v. Rambabu
Mishra: [1980] 2 SCR 1067
(c) Sukhwinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab;
[1994] 3 SCR 1061
5. Ganpat Singh Sample Supreme Court‟s Judgement
and Narpat Singh Finger relied on:
v. State of prints (1) Mohd. Aman v. State of
Rajasthan : RLW Rajasthan: 1997 Cri.L.J.
2007 (1) Raj 523 3567
(Rajasthan High
Court)
6. M.S. Syed Anwar Sample No Supreme Court Judgment
and Etc. v. Finger Print, relied on: Just a reference
Commissioner of Foot prints made to the provisions of
Police, Bangalore and Identification of Prisoners
City and Another: Photographs Act
1992 CriLJ 1606
20. It may be noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue whether to compel an accused to give his blood sample, palm and fingerprints impressions, signatures and handwriting etc. would or would not be violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which made it unconstitutional for a person to be a witness against himself. The Constitution Bench held that to be a witness means to give evidence. It was held that giving handwriting samples or fingerprints or palm impressions did not tantamount to giving evidence and that when a handwriting sample or a fingerprint or a palm impression was obtained by the police it did not amount to compelling an accused to be a witness against himself.
63. In Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435 construing the provisions of Section 4 & 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 it was held by the Supreme Court that police is competent under Section 4 of the said Act to take specimen fingerprints of the accused. In this case the fingerprints of the accused were taken before the Superintendent of Police Sh.K.P.Srivastava and it was held that it was not necessary for them to obtain an order from the Magistrate for obtaining such fingerprints. The relevant para 84 at page 458 is as under:-
S.No. Title Matter in Judgments Relied On
Issue
1. Harpal Singh v. Specimen 1. Crl. Appeal No. 682/2008
State : Crl. Handwriting 'Santosh @ Bhure v. State'
Appeal No.
362/2008 2. Crl. Appeal No. 316.2008
'Neeraj v. State'
Wherein the following
Supreme Court Judgments
were relied upon:
(a) State of Bombay v. Kathi
Kalu Oghad and Ors:
1961CriLJ856
(b) State of U.P. v. Rambabu
Mishra: [1980]2SCR1067
(c) Sukhwinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab:
[1994]3SCR1061
2. Raj Kumar @ Sample Supreme Court Judgments
Raju Vs. The Fingerprints relied on:
State (G.N.C.T. of (1) State of U.P. v. Ram Babu
Delhi): Crl. A. No. Mishra, AIR 1980 SC 791
979/2005 (2) Sukhvinder Singh v. State
of Punjab, 1994 (5) SCC 152
3. Mehmood Ali Vs. Sample Supreme Court‟s Judgments
State: Crl. Appeal Fingerprints relied on:
No. 326/2007 (1) State of U.P. v. Ram Babu
Mishra, AIR 80 SC 791
(2) Sukhvinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1994
(5) SCC 152 and
(3) State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4377
4. Ashok Kumar @ Sample Judgment relied on:
Govind Vs. State Fingerprint (1) Crl. Appeal No. 682/2008
[Alongwith Crl.A. 'Santosh @Bhure v. State'
Nos. 275, 397, Wherein the following
398, 410 and Supreme Court Judgments
601/2007]: were relied upon:
2010CriLJ2329, (a) State of Bombay v. Kathi
159(2009)DLT383 Kalu Oghad and Ors:
1961Cri. L.J. 856
(b) State of U.P. v. Rambabu
Mishra: [1980] 2 SCR 1067
(c) Sukhwinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab;
[1994] 3 SCR 1061
5. Ganpat Singh Sample Supreme Court‟s Judgement
and Narpat Singh Finger relied on:
v. State of prints (1) Mohd. Aman v. State of
Rajasthan : RLW Rajasthan: 1997 Cri.L.J.
2007 (1) Raj 523 3567
(Rajasthan High
Court)
6. M.S. Syed Anwar Sample No Supreme Court Judgment
and Etc. v. Finger Print, relied on: Just a reference
Commissioner of Foot prints made to the provisions of
Police, Bangalore and Identification of Prisoners
City and Another: Photographs Act
1992 CriLJ 1606