Supreme Court: What is evidentiary value of re-enactment of crime scene or demonstration panchnama?

 In the present case, the police conducted an exercise of re-enactment or demonstration of the crime scene by involving the accused persons. A crime scene re-enactment is a technique which is gaining prominence in the investigation of heinous offences. On its own, a re-enactment exercise does not constitute any direct form of evidence of the offence, as it is essentially in the nature of recreated evidence. However, it serves the limited purpose of explaining the physical attributes of the occurrence, such as place of occurrence, lighting conditions at the relevant point of time etc., as well as to visualize the manner of commission of the offence. It may not directly assist the Court in reaching any conclusion, but may help in the appreciation of the surrounding evidence on record, especially the visual evidence of the events. {Para 87}

88. The re-enactment or demonstration of an occurrence by an

accused is often based on eye-witness accounts of the offence or

on the basis of CCTV footage extracted from nearby cameras

installed in public spaces. Nevertheless, it cannot be held as a

general proposition that every re-enactment or demonstration of

a crime scene per se amounts to personal testimony of the

accused. If the re-enactment is merely based on a direction to

walk or to act a certain way or to imitate a visual sequence, it

does not necessarily involve any physical manifestation or

disclosure of the personal knowledge of the accused. In that

sense, it does not amount to any personal testimony. However, if

the accused is somehow led into demonstrating the incriminating

acts committed by him from his own knowledge, the same would

amount to testimonial compulsion and would be squarely hit by

Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Therefore, it would be

dangerous to lay down a general rule against the admissibility of

evidence based on re-enactment or demonstration of the

occurrence, as it would effectively kill a potent and scientific

investigative technique. The right approach is to tread a

proportionate path and see whether the re-enactment is merely a

directed demonstration to analyse physical attributes of the

suspects or a manifestation of the personal knowledge of the

accused. Although, we must be mindful of the fact that

inherently, by its very nature, an exercise of re-enactment of

occurrence is carried out as per the directions given by the

investigating officer and the re-enacted version does not amount

to a personal version of the accused. Rather, it remains an

enactment or demonstration of the version of the investigating

officer. Per se, a re-enactment of an occurrence is merely

‘created’ document/evidence and on its own, it hardly proves

anything. On the basis of such re-enactment, expert analysis such

as gait analysis is carried out, which gives rise to a distinct piece

of evidence, with distinct implications. Such expert evidence is

not based on the personal testimony of the accused and is merely

an analysis of the physical attributes of the accused, which could

be used for the purpose of identification during trial. Thus, the

thin line between ‘re-enactment’ and ‘evidence based on re-enactment’ needs to be acknowledged.

89. Importantly, it needs to be noted that evidence based on a

re-enactment or demonstration is not a substantive piece of

evidence of the actual commission of the offence. It is merely

corroborative evidence which may be useful to corroborate the

identities and physical attributes of the suspects, sequence of the

alleged occurrence, physical attributes of the place of occurrence

etc. On its own, re-enacted evidence cannot be made the basis to

arrive at a finding of conviction.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2493-2502 OF 2025

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs   PONNUSAMY & ORS. 

Author: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 507

Dated: May 19, 2026.

Read full judgment here: click here. 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Won't Violate Right Against Self Incrimination In All Situations

 As far as the evidence related to CCTV footage and gait analysis report is concerned, there are two aspects which require discussion – first, whether re-enactment of a crime scene by the accused amounts to personally incriminating testimony barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution and second, whether the CCTV footage and gait analysis report are admissible in evidence and can be relied upon.{Para 83}

11 Now Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(“BSA”) emerge primarily because the larger public interest in adopting technically advanced investigations often comes in a conflict with the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused which ensure fairness and lie at the heart of our criminal justice system. Therefore, such issues demand appropriate balance.

86. Invariably, the core test that has been applied in resolving

these issues is whether the act in question merely requires an

accused to act in a certain manner or to perform an act, without

giving any personal testimony, or in alternative, whether it

compels him to disclose incriminating information from his

personal knowledge. If it is the former, the act is constitutionally

valid as it merely amounts to assistance in the course of

investigation and the act, in itself, does not amount to any

personal testimony. However, if it is the latter, the act becomes

constitutionally impermissible as it effectively compels an

accused to be a “witness against himself”.

88. The re-enactment or demonstration of an occurrence by an

accused is often based on eye-witness accounts of the offence or

on the basis of CCTV footage extracted from nearby cameras

installed in public spaces. Nevertheless, it cannot be held as a

general proposition that every re-enactment or demonstration of

a crime scene per se amounts to personal testimony of the

accused. If the re-enactment is merely based on a direction to

walk or to act a certain way or to imitate a visual sequence, it

does not necessarily involve any physical manifestation or

disclosure of the personal knowledge of the accused. In that

sense, it does not amount to any personal testimony. However, if

the accused is somehow led into demonstrating the incriminating

acts committed by him from his own knowledge, the same would

amount to testimonial compulsion and would be squarely hit by

Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Therefore, it would be

dangerous to lay down a general rule against the admissibility of

evidence based on re-enactment or demonstration of the

occurrence, as it would effectively kill a potent and scientific

investigative technique. The right approach is to tread a

proportionate path and see whether the re-enactment is merely a

directed demonstration to analyse physical attributes of the

suspects or a manifestation of the personal knowledge of the

accused. Although, we must be mindful of the fact that

inherently, by its very nature, an exercise of re-enactment of

occurrence is carried out as per the directions given by the

investigating officer and the re-enacted version does not amount

to a personal version of the accused. Rather, it remains an

enactment or demonstration of the version of the investigating

officer. Per se, a re-enactment of an occurrence is merely

‘created’ document/evidence and on its own, it hardly proves

anything. On the basis of such re-enactment, expert analysis such

as gait analysis is carried out, which gives rise to a distinct piece

of evidence, with distinct implications. Such expert evidence is

not based on the personal testimony of the accused and is merely

an analysis of the physical attributes of the accused, which could

be used for the purpose of identification during trial. Thus, the

thin line between ‘re-enactment’ and ‘evidence based on re-enactment’ needs to be acknowledged.

89. Importantly, it needs to be noted that evidence based on a

re-enactment or demonstration is not a substantive piece of

evidence of the actual commission of the offence. It is merely

corroborative evidence which may be useful to corroborate the

identities and physical attributes of the suspects, sequence of the

alleged occurrence, physical attributes of the place of occurrence

etc. On its own, re-enacted evidence cannot be made the basis to

arrive at a finding of conviction.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2493-2502 OF 2025

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs   PONNUSAMY & ORS. 

Author: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 507

Dated: May 19, 2026.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 82)

Q 1:-   Whether statement recorded by officers under section 53 of ndps act are admissible? explain ratio of SC in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1

Ans:- Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, authorizes the Central and State Governments to grant officers from various departments, including Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, and Revenue Intelligence, the authority of an officer in charge of a police station for investigating offences under the Act. 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution U/S 294 of CRPC is Not in Violation Of Article 20(3) of consitution

 After having heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dave forthe petitioner and having perused Section 294 of Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

{Para 2}

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8535/2024

ASHOK DAGA Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Date : 12-07-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

Print Page

What is basic concept of Narco analysis test? How Supreme Court has dealt it in the judgment of Selvi V State of Karnataka?

 Narco analysis, also known as a "truth serum" test, involves the administration of certain drugs,  to induce a hypnotic or sedated state in which the subject is believed to be more likely to reveal truthful information. The subject is then interrogated in this state, with the aim of obtaining information that might be concealed when they are fully conscious.

In the context of Indian law, the Supreme Court of India addressed the admissibility and ethical considerations of narco analysis in the landmark case of Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., decided in 2010. This judgment has significant implications for the use of narco analysis, as well as other similar techniques like polygraph tests and brain mapping.

Here are the key points from the Selvi judgment:

Print Page

Whether court can direct accused to surrender his mobile phone to investigating officer for forensic examination?

 Bound, as I am, by the law laid down on Oghad (supra) and being in respectful agreement with the view taken by Suraj Govindraj.J in Virendra Khanna (supra) and also having regard to the provisions of Section 45-A of the Evidence Act and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act (for short, “the IT Act”), I hold that

the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused hand over the mobile phones in question for the purpose of forensic examination by an agency identified by the Central Government as ‘Examiner of Electronic Evidence’ under Section 79-A of theInformation Technology Act, 2000. { Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

BAIL APPL. NO. 248 OF 2022

 P.GOPALAKRISHNAN ALIAS DILEEP Vs  STATE OF KERALA 

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

Dated: 29th day of January 2022

Print Page

Whether court can hold accused who has committed principal offence guilty of offence U/S 202 of IPC if he fails to inform police about happening of crime?

Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Patel has vehemently urged that on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid offence under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the appellants. It would be convenient at the stage to refer to Section 202 of the Penal Code which runs as under:

202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

4. To sustain a conviction under the above quoted Section 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that some offence had been committed, (2) that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and (3) that the accused was legally bound to give that information. We have gone through the entire evidence bearing on the aforesaid offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code but have not been able to discern anything therein which may go to establish the aforesaid ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The offence in respect of which the appellants were indicted viz. having intentionally omitted to give information respecting an offence which he is legally bound to give, not having been established, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 202 of the Penal Code. It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the main. offence before making a person liable under this section. The offence under Section 304 (Part II) and the one under Section 331 of the Penal Code not having been established on account of several infirmities, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The High Court has also missed to notice that the word 'whoever' occurring at the opening part of Section 202 of the Penal Code refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. This is so because there is no law which casts a duty on a criminal to give information which would incriminate himself. That apart the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code do not appear to have been made out against the prosecution. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid main offences had been committed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1973

Decided On: 18.01.1979

Harishchandrasing Sajjansinh Rathod  Vs.  State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Raja Jaswant Singh and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.

Citations: AIR 1979 SC 1232, 1979 CriLJ 1025, (1979) 0 GLR 829, (1979) 4 SCC 502, 1979 (11) UJ 369 SC, MANU/SC/0114/1979 

Author:Raja Jaswant Singh, J.

Print Page

Question and answer in law Part 3

Q.1. What is meaning of endorsement of cheque in blank?

Ans;In the case of a check payable to John Smith (the payee), a blank endorsement would be the signature of John Smith on the back side of the check without any other words above or below his signature. ... The blank endorsement indicates that whoever is in possession of the endorsed check is considered to be the owner.See S 16 of NI Act.

Q.2. Define constructive res judicata?

Ans. Constructive res judicata is a subset of the doctrine of res judicata. Constructive res judicata sets to bar any claims being raised in a later proceeding if the claim should / ought to have been raised and decided in an earlier proceeding.

Q 3. Why there are different orders and sections in Civil Procedure Code?

Ans.The Code is divided into two parts: the first part contains 158 sections and the second part contains the First Schedule, which has 51 Orders and Rules. The sections provide provisions related to general principles of jurisdiction whereas the Orders and Rules prescribe procedures and method that govern civil proceedings in India.

4. Which article in constitution provides right against self incrimination?
A.Clause (3) of Article 20 of Indian constitution declares that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 3. it is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against himself.

5.What is Civil contempt and criminal contempt?

A. Contempt refers to the offence of showing disrespect to the dignity or authority of a court.  The Act divides contempt into civil and criminal contempt.  Civil contempt refers to the wilful disobedience of an order of any court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;.  Criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: (i) ‘scandalises’ the court, or (ii) prejudices any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.  ‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or publications which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary. 

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on Narco analysis

Constitution - Right against self-incrimination - Constitutionality of Involuntary administration of Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) - Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether the involuntary administration of the Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) violates the 'right against self-incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution - Held, circumstances that could 'expose a person to criminal charges' amounts to incrimination' for the purpose of Article 20(3) - Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible 'conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue' - Protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases - Since, the underlying rationale of the 'right against self-incrimination' is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence, the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the 'right against self-incrimination - Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory - Results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a 'testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence - Hence, test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion.

Constitution - Right against self-incrimination' - Who can avail Right against self-incrimination - Held - 'Right against self-incrimination ' available to persons who have been formally accused as well as those who are examined as suspects in criminal cases - Extends to cover witnesses who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the ongoing investigation or even in cases other than the one being investigated. 

Constitution - 'Testimonial Compulsion' - Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques amount to 'testimonial compulsion' thereby attracting the bar of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Held, reliance on the contents of compelled testimony comes within the prohibition of Article 20(3) but its use for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts already known to the investigators not barred - Narcoanalysis technique involves testimonial act as the subject is encouraged to speak in a drug-induced state such - Hence, compulsory administration of the narcoanalysis technique amounts to 'testimonial compulsion' and thereby triggers the protection of Article 20(3).

Constitution - Inter-relation between Right to fair trial and 'personal liberty' - Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950 - Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques a reasonable restriction on `personal liberty' as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution - Held, inter-relationship between the `right against self- incrimination' and the `right to fair trial' has been recognised under Article 21 - Forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of `substantive due process' which is required for restraining personal liberty - Compulsory administration of these techniques an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual which amount to `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' - Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right against self-incrimination - Thus, no individual to be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise.

Criminal - Derivative evidence - Admissibility of - Section 27 Evidence Act, 1872 and Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of extracting statements which may furnish a link in the chain of evidence and hence create a risk of exposure to criminal charges - Whether such derivative use of information extracted in a custodial environment is compatible with Article 20(3) - Held, Section 27 of Evidence Act, permits the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events - Provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the prohibition under Article 20(3) unless compulsion has been used in obtaining the information - Thus, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act

"Compulsory involuntary administration of the Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) violates the `right against self-incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution as the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test."

"Article 20(3) not only a trial right but its protection extends to the stage of investigation also."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1267 of 2004, 

Decided On: 05.05.2010

Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0325/2010 : (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263

Print Page

Notes on Article 20 of constitution of India

Article 20 has taken care to safeguard the rights of persons accused of crimes. Persons here means the citizens, non-citizens as well as corporations. Please note that this article cannot be suspended even during an emergency in operation under article 359. Article 20 also constitutes the limitation on the legislative powers of the Union and State legislatures.

Ex-Post facto Law

Print Page

When brain mapping and Narco analysis tests reports are not admissible in evidence?

It is incidentally noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant was subjected to brain mapping and Narco Analysis Test, but the person who had conducted the test was not tendered as a witness before the court and none has been examined to explain the report of the brain mapping and Narco Analysis Test.

Admittedly, the bulk of the allegations against the appellant are hence not on the basis of independent material evidence, but is apparently on the basis of revelations said to have been made by the appellant, while in a drug induced state when polygraph, brain mapping and narco analysis tests were resorted to in extracting information from the appellant. Though seemingly incriminating reports are placed on record, the person who had conducted these tests was never examined as a witness. However, the reports are marked as Exhibits P-95 to P-97. The said reports cannot also be relied upon as the same is violative of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Selvi & others v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0325/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 1974. Compulsory involuntary administration of the Narco-analysis, Polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile violates the right against self incrimination enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test.

Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had made out a case on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant was guilty of any offence punishable under Section 121, 122 or 124-A of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 3645/2010

Decided On: 20.07.2016

 Abdul Raheman

Vs.

 The State of Karnataka

Coram:

Anand Byrareddy and L. Narayana Swamy, JJ.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)28 Kar

Print Page