Consider the following statements:
In view of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, no person accused of an offence can be compelled to
1. Give his signature or thumb impression for identification
2. Give oral testimony either in or out of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

The Indian Constitution provides immunity to ar
accused against self-incrimination under Article
20(3) - 'No person accused of an offence shall
be compelled to be a witness against himself'. It
is based on the legal maxim "nemo teneteur
prodre accussare seipsum", which means "No
man is obliged to be a witness against himself.

The Supreme Court widened the scope of this
immunity by interpreting the word 'witness' to
include oral as well as documentary evidence
so that no person can be compelled to be a
witness to support a prosecution against
himself. This prohibition cannot be applied in
cases where an object or document is searched
or seized from the possession of the accused

For the same reason, the clause does not bar
the medical examination of the accused or the
obtaining of thumb-impression or specimen
signature from him. This immunity is available
only against criminal proceedings. The Supreme
Court has made it clear that in order to claim
this immunity from being compelled to make a
self-incriminating statement, it is necessary that
a formal accusation must have been made
against the person at the time of interrogation
e cannot claim the immunity at some general
nquiry or investigation on the ground that his statement may at a later stage lead to an accusation.

The compulsory administration of the narco-analysis technique amounts totestimonial compulsion' and thereby triggers protection of Article 20(3) of the
the Constitution.