In which of the following cases did an eleven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court hold that the rule…

In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), an eleven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined whether the custodial discovery rule (now the proviso to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; formerly Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) offends Article 20(3), which protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court held that the provision is constitutionally valid where no compulsion is used to extract the statement, as mere police custody does not by itself establish testimonial compulsion. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) concerned a challenge under Article 14, and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) addressed the right against self-incrimination during police interrogation.