Lecture-7

Section-8..Cond
 Sec-8
• “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes
a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.
• The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any
party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to
such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any
fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person an offence against whom
is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if
such conduct influences or is influenced by any
fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was
previous or subsequent thereto”
 Cond.

• Explanation 1—The word “conduct” in this

section does not include statements, unless
those statements accompany and explain
acts other than statements; but this
explanation is not to affect the relevancy of
statements under any other section of this
Act.
• Explanation 2—When the conduct of any
person is relevant, any statement made to him
or in his presence and hearing, which affects
such conduct, is relevant.
 Motive…refers to Illus.(a) and (b)
• Motive is that which moves, or influences the
mind…..
• Motive is that which moves or induces the mind
to act in a certain way….
• Motive is that which stimulates and incites an
action, and it is altogether different from
intention…..
• A person’s intention in his decision to do or not
to do a particular act; his motive is his reason for
forming that decision…..
• First step in every investigation: “Look for him.
To… whom the crime profits”….
 Illustrations
• (a) “ A is tried for the • (b) “A sues B upon a
murder of B. bond for the payment
• The fact that A of money. B denies the
murdered C, that B making of the bond
knew that A had
murdered C, and that B • The fact that, at the
had tried to extort time when the bond
money from A by was alleged to be made,
threatening to make his B required money for a
knowledge public, are particular purpose, is
relevant. relevant”
 Illus…(C) & (d)…refers to Preparation
• (c) “ A is tried for
the murder of B by
poison
• The fact that,
before the death
of B, A procured
poison similar to
that which was
administered to B,
is relevant
• (d) “ The question is,
whether a certain
document is the will of A.
• The facts that, not long
before the date of the
alleged will,
• A made enquiry into
matters to which the
provision of the alleged will
relate,
• that he consulted vakils in
reference to making the
will, and that he caused
drafts of other wills to be
prepared, of which he did
not approve, are relevant”
 Conduct
• A fact can be proved by conduct of a party and by
surrounding circumstances
• Statements accompanying or explaining conduct
are also relevant as evidence as conduct
• Malkani v. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157
• The conversation over telephone for settling
details for passing bribe-money was recorded by
secret instruments.
• This was held to be evidence of conduct. It
matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it
would be admissible in evidence.
 Accused’s Conduct..
• (e) A is accused of a crime.
• The facts that, either before or at
the time of, or after the alleged
crime,
• A provided evidence which would
tend to give to the facts of the case
an appearance favourable to
himself,
• or that he destroyed
• or concealed evidence,
• or prevented the presence
• or procured the absence of
persons who might have been
witnessed,
• or suborned persons to give false
evidence respecting it, are
relevant.
• (i) A is accused of a crime
• The facts that, after the
commission of the alleged
crime,
• he absconded, or
• was in possession of
property or
• the proceeds of property
acquired by the crime, or
• attempted to conceal
things which were or might
have been used in
committing it, are relevant.
 Conduct…Analysis of Illus.(e)&(i) along with
Explanation(1)
• The first explanation says that a mere statement is not
relevant.
• But if the statement accompanies and explains the acts
other than statement, such statements would be
relevant.
• Statements which accompany and explain acts other
than statements are
• (i) Complaints, and
• (ii) That the accused pointing out to the police during
investigation various places connected with the crime…
 Conduct..Cond.
• The conduct of pointing out places would be relevant
u/s.8, but u/s.162 of the Cr.P.C, evidence of it would
be inadmissible, because it is a statement made to
the police during investigation. This is another
instance of a relevant fact being inadmissible
• If, however, any fact is discovered as a result of such
information given to the police, the relevancy of such
a statement is covered by s.27 of the Act
• If, however, any statement is in the form of
confessional statement is inadmissible by the
operation of s.25 except those statements, which are
covered u/s. 27
 Victim’s Conduct…Victim’s complaint
• (j) The question is, whether A was
ravished.
• The facts that, shortly after the
alleged rape,
• she made a complaint relating to
the crime, the circumstances
under which, and the terms in
which, the complaint was made,
are relevant.
• The fact that, without making a
complaint, she said that she had
been ravished is not relevant as
conduct under this section,
though it may be relevant as a
dying declaration under section
32, clause (1), or as corroborative
evidence under section 157.
• (k) The question is, whether A was
robbed.
• The fact that, soon after the
alleged robbery,
• he made a complaint relating to
the offence, the circumstances
under which, and the terms in
which, the complaint was made,
are relevant.
• The fact that he said he had been
robbed without making any
complaint, is not relevant, as
conduct under this section, though
it may be relevant as a dying
declaration under section 32,
clause (1), or as corroborative
evidence under section 157.
 Analysis of Illus..(j) &(k) along with
Explanation(1)
• If the statement is not accompanying the conduct, it
becomes mere statement and hence not admissible
under Section 8 as conduct.
• If, however, the person affected is dead after making
statement, even the statement does not accompany
the conduct or the statement amounts to complaint
or not, it would be relevant by itself u/s.32(1)
• If the person did not die and the statement does not
accompany the conduct, it can be used for
corroboration.
 Illus..(f), (g) and (h) illustrates the
Explanation.(2)
• Explanation 2: When the conduct of any
person is relevant, any statement made to him
or in his presence and hearing, which affects
such conduct, is relevant.
• That the conduct must be first relevant, if so, a
statement made to the person would be
relevant if it affects the conduct,
• i.e., produces a change in the conduct
 Examples for Explanation.2

• (f) The question is, whether A robbed B.

• The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence -
"the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B,"
and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
• (g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
• The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said
to C in A's presence and hearing - " I advise you not to trust
A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees," and that A went away
without making any answer, are relevant facts-Silent may
amount to conduct and thus become relevant
• (h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
• The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning
him that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the
contents of the letter, are relevant.
 Explanation-II….Analysis

• The statements made in the presence of the party

are admissible as the ground-work of that conduct.
• The question is whether A murdered B.
• During the enquiry one C said in the presence of A “
the sub-inspector is coming to arrest the man who
has murdered B. Hearing these words of C, A runs
away.
• At the trial of A, the words spoken by C that the sub-
inspector was coming to arrest the murderer, and
after hearing that A’s running away are relevant
together. If the words “ sub-inspector was coming to
arrest the murderer” was said to A is not proved,
merely saying that A ran away will be meaningless.
 Lokesh Shivkumar v. State of Karnataka

• Section-302 r.w.sec-34
• It is well established that if the prosecution case is
fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled
with medical evidence, the issue of motive loses
practically all relevance. In this case, we find the
ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution
case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it.
• Absence of Motive:-
• It has been held that where credible evidence exists
on record to establish guilt of the accused, it is not
necessary to find out the motive of the crime.
 Cond.

• It is true that in a case relating to

circumstantial evidence, motive does assume
great importance but to say that the absence
of motive would dislodge the entire
prosecution story is perhaps giving this one
factor an importance which is not due.
• Motive if proved makes the case stronger but
its absence does not render evidence
unworthy of acceptance.
 Lakshmi v. State

• (a) The accused was addicted to smoking ganja

and taking wine. He used to make demands
from deceased Chhedi Lal, who was opposed to
this habit of life of the appellant and would not
accede to his request to advance him money to
enable him to indulge in these activities.
• A few days before, the accused had also
beaten his mother and wife. At that time
deceased had intervened and prevented him
from doing so. On the appellant's refusal to
obey him, the deceased had chained him.
 Cond.

The accused had run away after breaking the chains.

The accused stopped speaking to Chhedi Lal. (the facts
given in this para were admitted as motive of the
murder)
(b) on the evening of 6th Oct. 1954, Chhedi Lal was sitting
at his door on a chabutra. The appellant took a pharsa
and proceeded towards Chhedi Lal. He began to assault
Chhedi Lal with the pharsa. He raised an alarm, number
of persons reached the spot on hearing the cry. On the
arrival of several persons, the appellant fled away
outside the village with the pharsa.
(the contents of this Para were admitted as the
conduct of the accused, before the incident, at the
time of the incident and after the incident)
 Cond.

• (c) the accused tried to win over the witness of

fact. In jail he gave a correct description of the
address. At the trial, at every stage, his
statement was such as according to his
conception was best calculated to subserve his
purpose and to advance his own interest.
(Making favourable Statement)
• At the trial the accused took the plea that he
was of unsound mind at the time of the
incident. (the facts given in this Para were
admissible as conduct of the accused during
the trial in reference to the proceedings)
 Previous conduct- “Last seen together”
doctrine
• The presence of the accused at the place of
the offence or his being seen last with the
deceased are also relevant.
• This is sometimes referred to as the test of
“last seen together”.
Sk. Yusuf v West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754
• Abdul Rashid (PW.5) is alleged to have stated:

“When I was returning from my field at 9.00 A.M., I saw

Yusuf, appellant, catching fish near the jhinga field
adjacent to the graveyard. I talked with him there and
thereafter returned home. I did not see anybody else near
that place. At about 10.45 A.M., I heard that the dead
body of the Sahanara Khatun was recovered from the
graveyard as she had been murdered by someone. I went
to graveyard alongwith others. When the police officer
asked me as to who was the person, I told him that I saw
Yusuf, appellant, catching fish in a nala near the
graveyard.”
• Abdul Majid Mallick (PW.4) stated :

"I alongwith Rezwan Ali went to the house of

Yusuf, appellant. We saw at the time that Yusuf,
appellant, was going to his house with a spade
and thala. Yusuf, appellant reported to us that
he went to catch fish beside the nala. Rasid and
Swapan firmly stated that they saw Yusuf, near
the jhinga field. I again went to the house of
Yusuf, and saw he fled away. Therefore, we
could not apprehend Yusuf, in our village."
• "I do not know as to why Sahanara Khatun
was murdered. Swapan Murmu is not a
resident of our village. I cannot say where he
is now residing. Rejowan Ali is an ailing
person. Sirajul is now residing in Punjab. I saw
Yusuf coming to his house carrying spade and
a plate in his hand. I heard from Rashid and
Swapan that they had seen the accused near
the place of occurrence."
• Abdul Rajak (PW.2), father of the deceased
had deposed as under:

"I came to know that Yusuf murdered my

daughter ... I cannot say what was the reason for
murder of my daughter".
• The persons particularly Rezwan Ali and Sirajul who
had told these witnesses that they had seen the
appellant-accused near the jhinga field at the
relevant time had not been examined. More so, it
has not been stated by any of the aforesaid
witnesses or persons not examined that Sahanara
Khatun (deceased) was also seen there alongwith
Yusuf, appellant. It has not been deposed by any of
the witnesses that deceased was seen talking with
the appellant at all.
• “the last seen theory comes into play where
the time gap between the point of time when
the accused and deceased were last seen alive
and when the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than
accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible.”
• From the above, it is evident that neither Abdul Majid
Mallick (PW.4) nor Abdul Rashid (PW.5) had stated that
either of them had seen Sahanara Khatun (deceased)
along with Yusuf, near the place of occurrence in close
proximity of time. All the witnesses deposed that
appellant alone was seen near the place of occurrence
with spade as he had gone there for catching the fish.
Thus, there is no evidence to the extent that the
deceased and appellant were seen together at the place
of occurrence or nearby the same in close proximity of
time.
• While the appellant-accused was examined by
the trial Court, he was asked the question that
during that time Abdul Rashid (PW.5) and
Swapan Murmu (not examined) had seen him
talking with the deceased. The appellant
replied that he was innocent.
• We fail to understand as no witness had
deposed seeing Sahanara Khatun, deceased
talking with the appellant/accused, how such
a question could be put to the accused.
 Cond.

• Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky v. State of Punjab,

(2006) 12 SCC 306
• “Conduct of an accused must have nexus with
the crime committed. It must form part of the
evidence as regards his conduct either
preceding, during or after commission of the
offence as envisaged under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act.”
 Sec-9

• 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant

facts:
• Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in
issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an
inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant
fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or
person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or
place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact
happened, or which show the relation of parties by
whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in
so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
 Scope
1. Facts explaining a fact in issue or relevant fact.
2. Facts introducing a fact in issue or relevant fact.
3. Facts which support an inference suggested by a
fact in issue or relevant fact.
4. Facts which rebut an inference suggested by a fact
in issue or relevant fact
5. Facts establishing the identity of any thing or
person whose identity is relevant.
6. Facts which fix the time or place of the fact in issue.
7. Facts which show the relation of parties by whom
any fact was transacted.
 Cond.

• (a) The question is, whether a given document

is the Will of A. The state of A's property and of
his family at the date of the alleged Will may be
relevant facts.-(introduces the circumstances in
which the will became necessary)
• (d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of
service made by him with A. C, on leaving A's
service, says to A— "I am leaving you because B
has made me a better offer”. This statement is a
relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct,
which is relevant as a fact in issue.
 Cond.

• Illustration (b) explains what is meant by facts which

introduce a fact in issue
• (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to
A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is
true.
• The position and relations of the parties at the time
when the libel was published may be relevant facts as
introductory to the facts in issue.
• The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a
matter unconnected with the alleged libel are
irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may
be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
 Cond.

• (e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the

stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to
A's wife. B says, as he delivers it—" A says you
are to hide this”. B's statement is relevant as
explanatory of a fact which is part of the
transaction.
• (f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have
marched at the head of a mob. The cries of
the mob are relevant as explanatory of the
nature of the transaction.
 Illustrations

• (c) A is accused of a crime, the fact that, soon after the

commission of the crime, A absconded from his house is
relevant under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and
affected by facts in issue (draw the inference that he is
guilty).
• The fact that at the time when he left home he had
sudden and urgent business at the place to which he
went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he
left home suddenly (draw the different interpretation of
the conduct-rebut the relevant fact )
• The details of the business on which he left are not
relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show
that the business was sudden and urgent.
 Identification of Person-TIP

• Harnath Singh v. state of M.P., AIR 1970 SC 1619:

Purpose:
• Pre-Trial Stage: Test Identification parade during
investigation is held for the purpose of enabling the
witnesses to identify the properties which are the
subject-matter of the offence or the persons who are
concerned therein.
• Its objectives:
• (1) to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain
person not previously known to the witnesses was
involved in the commission of the crime or a particular
property was the subject-matter of the crime.
 Cond.

• (2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the

testimony which the witnesses concerned
tendered before the court.
• Other objectives:
• The purpose of T.I parade is to test the veracity of
a witness on the question of capability of a
witness to identify an unknown person whom the
witness might have seen only once
• To test the substantive evidence of identification
in the box with reference to corroborative
evidence of T.I parade
Problem in identification of a strange person

• If the witnesses:
1. Were not personally acquainted with the accused before
the murder and he is a total stranger to them; and
2. Have seen the accused for the first time at the time of
murder; or
3. Have seen the accused in dim light; or
4. Have seen the accused for a fleeting moment only; or
5. Have seen the accused from behind only and can identify
him not by his face but only by his peculiar features.
6. Do not correctly recollect the identity of the accused as
long time has elapsed between the murder and the trial
and the memory of the witnesses has faded.
 Procedures and precautions
• Hasib v. state of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283
• The value of the T.I parade depends on the
effectiveness of precautions taken to prevent the
opportunity of seeing the suspects and to prevent
the investigating authority to adopt unfair means
• (a) T.I parade should be preferably held by a
Magistrate
• (b) It should be held in the jail compound
• (c) Suspects should be mixed up with as many
under trial prisoners/outsiders as possible
 Cond.
• (d) U.T prisoners/Outsiders and suspects should
be similarly dressed and should be similar social
status, age and religion
• (e) they should resemble in features
• (f) After each of identification by the identifying
witness the order of suspects and U.T
prisoners/outsiders in the row should be changed
• (g) Other identifying witnesses should be kept in
a place beyond the sight and hearing of the
witness identifying
 Cond.

• (h) After identification the witness should be

and kept in a place beyond the sight and
hearing of the witness identifying
• (i) No police personnel should remain present
in the identification ground
• (j) The statement of witnesses relating to the
suspect made in course of identification
should be recorded by the magistrate and
Power of the Court to order TIP and accused
right to demand
• Before Cr.P.C-the Criminal Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2005
• The Court’s Power to Order:
• The court do no had the power to order for
conducting any test including TIP
• But, the courts used to order for the test by
invoking Section 151 of CPC (Dass v. Teeku Datta,
2005 (4) SCC 449)
• And by invoking the Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(Lallu Lal
Patel v. Anarkali, ILR (2011) MP 1605)
 Cond.

• Goutam Kundu v. West Bengal, The court held

that, it cannot compel anyone to give a sample
of blood for analysis
• In Mahabir v. State of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2343
• The identification proceedings are in the nature
of tests, and significantly, therefore, there is no
provision for it under Cr.P.C. or Evidence Act
• TIP belongs to the stage of investigation
• These are essentially falls within the ambit of
Section 162 of Cr.P.C
 Cond.

• Again in Marada Venkatesawara Rao v.

Varalakshmi, AIR 2008 AP 195
• The Court ordered for conducting the DNA
tests under Section 45 of the Evidence Act
• But Sec 45 is not the source of power for the
Court to order, it is only relevancy portal.
• After 2005 Cr.P.C. Amendment
• Section 53-Accused can demand medical
examination of his body to disprove his guilt
• Section 53 A
• Sec 54 & Sec 54A
• Sec 5 & 6 The Identification Of Prisoners Act,
1920
• Power of Magistrate to order a person to be
measured or photographed
• Resistance to the taking measurements, etc
 Constitutionality of tests

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961

SC 1808
• Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
empowers the court to, obtain specimen
writing or signature and finger impressions of
an accused person for purposes of
Comparison.
• Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of
Prisoners Act empower a Magistrate to obtain
the photograph or measurements of an
accused person.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits
the reception in evidence of statements made
by an accused person in police custody which
lead to a discovery.

• There was no infringement of Art. 20(3) of the

Constitution in compelling an accused person
to give his specimen handwriting or
signature, or impressions of his thumb,
fingers, palm or foot to the investigating
officer or under orders of a court for the
purposes of comparison.
• the provisions of s. 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act did not offend Art. 20(3) unless
compulsion was used in obtaining the
information. Compulsion was not inherent in
the receipt of information from an accused
person in the custody of a police officer; it will
be a question of fact in each case to be
determined by the court on the evidence
before it whether compulsion had been used
in obtaining the information.
 The correct position with respect to the
guarantee under Art. 20(3) is that-
• t​ he guarantee  includes not  only oral​ ​testimony given in court
or out of court but​ ​also  statements in writing which
incriminate the maker when figuring as an accused person;
• ​the words "to be a witness"  in   Art. 20(3)  do not  include the
 giving  of  thumb impression  or  impression of  palm,  foot
 or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of   the body
 by  an  accused person for identification;
• ​"self-incrimination" means conveying information based upon
the personal  knowledge of  the  given and does not include
 the mere mechanical process of ​ producing documents  in
court  which  do not contain' any statement of the accused
based on his personal knowledge;
• in order to come within the prohibition of Art.
20(3) the testimony must be of such
a character that by itself it should have
the, tendency to incriminate the accused; and
• to avail of the protection of Art. 20(3) the
person must have stood in the character of an
accused person at the time he made
the statement.
• The protection afforded by Art. 20(3) is not
merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in
the court room but extends also to compelled
testimony previously obtained from the accused
• The words "to be a witness" in Art 20(3) mean,
to furnish evidence" and cannot be confined to
imparting personal knowledge; such evidence
can be furnished through lips or by production
of a thing or of a document or in other modes.
• Anaccused person furnishes evidence when he
gives his specimen handwriting or
impressions of his fingers or palm or foot.
• But in doing so the accused does not furnish
evidence against himself as by themselves
these specimens or impressions do not
incriminate or even tend to incriminate the
accused and he cannot be said to be
compelled “to be a witness against himself”
when he is compelled to give the specimen or
impression.
• Nandini Satpathi v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424
• Taking Handwriting, finger impressions under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Two crucial questions under Article 20 (3)
• (1) Is the person a witness and
• (2) whether he is being compelled to be a
witness “against himself”.
 Cond.

• Answers..(1) he is witness within the meaning

of Article 20(3) but those finger prints are not
evidence against him at that stage.
• (2) It becomes ‘against’-only when the finger
prints experts gives opinion that the finger
prints matches with the witness.
• Thus, even if it is held that the person is a
witness when he gives the finger prints, still
that evidence does not fall foul of Article 20(3)
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263

• The legal questions in this batch of criminal

appeals relate to the involuntary
administration of certain scientific techniques,
namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination
and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile
(BEAP) test for the purpose of improving
investigation efforts in criminal cases.
• Whether the involuntary administration of the
impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self-
incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3)?
• (a) whether the investigative use of the impugned
techniques creates a likelihood of incrimination for
the subject?
• (b) whether the results derived from the impugned
techniques amount to ‘testimonial compulsion’
thereby attacting the bar of Art 20 (3)?
• Whether the involuntary administration of
the impugned techniques is a reasonable
restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood
in the context of Art 21?
 Cond.

1. In our considered opinion, the compulsory administration of

the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self-
incrimination’.
2. This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to
ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements
that are admitted as evidence.
3. This Court has recognised that the protective scope of Article
20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and
when read with Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 it protects accused persons, suspects as well
as witnesses who are examined during an investigation.
4. The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have
been obtained through the use of compulsion.
5. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a
‘testimonial’ character and they cannot be categorised as
material evidence.
6. We are also of the view that forcing an individual to undergo any
of the impugned techniques violates the standard of ‘substantive
due process’ which is required for restraining personal liberty.
7. Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these
techniques are forcibly administered during the course of an
investigation or for any other purpose since the test results could
also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal
nature.
8. The impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory
provisions which enable medical examination during investigation
in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. We have also elaborated how the compulsory administration of
any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental
privacy of an individual. It would also amount to `cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment' with regard to the language of evolving
international human rights norms.
• Furthermore, placing reliance on the results
gathered from these techniques comes into
conflict with the `right to fair trial'. Invocations of
a compelling public interest cannot justify the
dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right
against self-incrimination'.
• In light of these conclusions, we hold that no
individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the
techniques in question, whether in the context of
investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so
would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into
personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the
voluntary administration of the impugned techniques
in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain
safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has
given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test
results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence
because the subject does not exercise conscious
control over the responses during the administration
of the test.
• However, any information or material that is
subsequently discovered with the help of
voluntary administered test results can be
admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
 Identification of thing

• Identification the weapon used-through the person who

has seen it
• Identification of finger impressions on the gun through
expert’s testimony
• Identifying the person who has executed the document,
who wrote, signed…
• Identification of persons or things through photos and
videos
• Identification through DNA tests
• Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Crl. LJ 3139 (SC)
• Identification of accused declared as proclaimed offenders
by witnesses using the photographs shall have the same
value as test identification.