2012 (5) TMI 827 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of sample handwriting or signature obtained from an accused during investigation.
2. Interpretation of "measurements" u/s 2(a) of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
3. Powers of police officers and Magistrates u/s 4 and 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
4. Constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
5. Applicability of Section 73 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6. Legislative changes and their impact on the admissibility of evidence.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Sample Handwriting or Signature:
The court examined whether sample handwriting or signature obtained from an accused during investigation is admissible. It was concluded that neither Section 4 nor Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 encompasses handwriting. Therefore, an investigating officer cannot obtain handwriting or signature samples from an accused, and even a Magistrate could not direct an accused to give such samples prior to June 23, 2006.

2. Interpretation of "Measurements" u/s 2(a) of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920:
The term "measurements" as defined in Section 2(a) includes finger impressions and foot-print impressions but does not include handwriting or signatures. The court emphasized that the definition expands on the ordinary meaning of "measurement" but is limited to physical attributes of the human body.

3. Powers of Police Officers and Magistrates u/s 4 and 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920:
Section 4 authorizes a police officer to take measurements of a person arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, in the prescribed manner. Section 5 empowers a Magistrate to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken for investigation purposes. However, these sections do not apply to handwriting or signatures.

4. Constitutional Guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's opinion in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, which negated the contention that compelling an accused to give finger print impressions or handwriting would amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

5. Applicability of Section 73 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
The court noted that Section 73 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers a court to obtain specimen writing or signatures for comparison purposes. However, this power is limited to the court concerned and does not extend to police officers or Magistrates during investigation.

6. Legislative Changes and Their Impact on the Admissibility of Evidence:
The court highlighted that with the insertion of Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, effective from June 23, 2006, a Magistrate is now empowered to direct an accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting. This legislative change addressed the lacuna noted in earlier judgments.

Conclusion:
(i) Handwriting and signature are not "measurements" u/s 2(a) of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Sections 4 and 5 do not apply to handwriting or signature samples, and an investigating officer cannot obtain such samples during investigation.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, even a Magistrate could not direct an accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting samples. According to Section 73 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the court concerned can direct a person to submit handwriting or signature samples for comparison.
(iii) For finger prints, which are included in "measurements," the prescribed manner must be followed, and it is desirable to follow the procedure under Section 5 to avoid suspicion and ensure the authenticity of evidence. Section 4 does not apply to offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.