Explanation:

The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) – ‘No person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. • This protection extends to both oral and documentary evidence, and it is a crucial safeguard against forced confessions and the use of torture to extract evidence from suspects. However, the right against self-incrimination does not extend to the compulsory production of material objects. For example, a person may be compelled to produce documents, weapons, or other physical evidence that is relevant to a criminal investigation. The right against self-incrimination also does not protect a person from providing a thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimen, or exhibiting the body. Furthermore, the right against self-incrimination is limited to criminal proceedings and does not apply to civil proceedings or proceedings that are not of a criminal nature. Hence option (d) is the correct answer. • The Supreme Court has made several rulings regarding the admissibility of certain types of evidence and the rights of accused individuals. In 2019, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Ritesh Sinha versus the State of Uttar Pradesh that expanded the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples. This ruling is significant because it broadened the scope of admissible evidence in criminal cases and could potentially help in identifying culprits who use voice-based communication for criminal activities. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court held in Selvi v State of Karnataka that conducting a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would violate the right against self-incrimination. Narcoanalysis involves the administration of a drug to the accused person to elicit information about the case. The Court held that the test is a form of mental coercion and violates the right against self-incrimination, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution. • Regarding DNA samples, the Supreme Court has held that obtaining DNA samples from an accused person is permissible. If an accused person refuses to give a DNA sample, the Court can draw adverse inferences against them under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. This means that the Court can take the refusal as evidence against the accused and draw negative inferences about their involvement in the crime.