During the investigation of a forgery case, the police compel the accused to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for comparison with the disputed documents. The accused claims this violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Which statement is correct?

Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, but this protection extends only to testimonial compulsion, that is, to communications conveying the personal knowledge of the accused. The Supreme Court has consistently held that giving specimen handwriting, signatures or finger impressions for comparison does not amount to testimony, because the accused is not imparting any knowledge of facts; such material is physical evidence used only for comparison. Compelling the accused to furnish these specimens during investigation therefore does not infringe Article 20(3), although a confessional statement made to the police may be excluded. The options equating handwriting with testimony, or attaching conditions such as magisterial consent, state positions the provision does not support.