violation of article20(3)of the constitution

Dear Dr.Pratihar,

                                    Immunity under article 20 (3) does not extend to specimen writing. Please refer to the case of state of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu AIR 1961 SC 1808.

i agree with Mr. Assumi. anything that leads to the discovery of facts, are not covered under Article 20(3). for exaple, if the accused shows the place where the dead body of the victim of a murder case has kept, it is verymuch valid, as it helps to the discovery of some facts related to the case.

Dear Sirs, Nice to discuss this topic.

leave alone the writing. Is not making the accused undergo narco analysis test and recording "statements in a trance stage" ie, in a semiconcious stage violative of art 20(3). Again a statement made when not in full concious whether is admissible in evidence? The narco analysis test is nothing but another way of intoxication. Earlier police were using liquor as "truth serum". now substituted by chemicals. An acussed can take defence of intoxication under IPC. Then how can his statements made under the influence of drugs be admissible in evidence. Can discuss this subject in detail?

yes sir - he is not medically fit to give statement.here ends the query.                                   i agree with mr assumi. on the other hand i studied and further found a judgment---"court cannot compel the accused to writeout. it can direct the accused to write out a document alleged to be forged.AIR1952 tc482; AIR1957 mp73"