Among, the following under which case the Court held that the giving of finger impressions or specimen writing or of signature by an accused person under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense is not included within the expression “to be a witness” against himself according to the Article 20(3) of the Constitution_______.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad is the landmark case which decided the scope of being a witness against oneself. An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. Sheoraj v State:A record or memorandum of evidence or a statement or confession can be presumed to be genuine if it is taken in accordance with law. Also, the provisions of the Evidence Act make it clear that no person can claim the status of a witness except in relation to a proceeding before a Court. It follows that while an offence is still under investigation there is nobody who can be called "witness" and there is no statement that can be called "evidence", Fazal Sheikh v. Abdur Rahman: Wakf deed which is a private document kept in the office of the Sub-Registrar is a public document.