Open Access Research Article
Rights Against Self-Incrimination
Published Paper
Article Details
Rights Against
Self-Incrimination
Authored By - Drithi Rajashekar
Introduction:
According to the law, self-incrimination is the act of
exposing oneself to an accusation or charge of crime,
frequently by making
a statement "to
an allegation or charge of crime; to involve oneself
or another [person] in a basically criminal prosecution or danger
thereof." To put it another way, it
is the act of accusing or exposing oneself to criminal prosecution that is
particularly crucial. In particular,
contrary to popular assumption, it can occur either directly or indirectly.
Interrogation, in particular, is an
example of a direct method in which self-incriminating information is offered voluntarily and without any external
pressure. Accused offenders cannot be forced to testify against themselves in legal systems.
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
grants an accused immunity from self-incrimination: 'No person accused of a crime will be compelled to be a witness
against himself.' It is founded on the legal
rule "nemo tenetur prodere accussare seipsum," which translates
"No man is compelled to testify against
himself." The Supreme
Court expanded the breadth of this protection by understanding the term "witness" to include both oral and documentary evidence,
ensuring that no one
can be forced to testify against themselves. When an accused's possession of an
object or document is searched or
seized, this prohibition does not apply. For the same reason, the clause does not exclude
the accused from being medically checked or having
his thumbprint or specimen signature collected. This immunity is only applicable in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court
has made it plain that a formal accusation against the individual must
have been made at the time of interrogation in order to claim this immunity from being compelled
to deliver a self- incriminating statement. In a broad inquiry or investigation, he cannot claim immunity because
his statement may lead to an accusation later on. The compelled supply of the narco-analysis technology
is 'testimonial coercion,' triggering the protections of Article 20(3) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Body:
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution grants an accused immunity
against self-incrimination: 'No
person accused of a crime will be compelled to be a witness against himself.'
It is founded on the legal maxim "nemo tenetur prodere accussare
seipsum," which translates "No man is compelled
to testify against himself." The Supreme Court expanded the scope of this
protection by defining the term
"witness" to include both oral and documentary evidence, ensuring
that no one can be forced to testify
against themselves. When an accused's possession of an object or document is searched or seized, this
prohibition does not apply. For the same reason, the clause does not exclude
the accused from being medically checked or having
his thumbprint or specimen signature collected. This immunity is only applicable in criminal proceedings.
Article 20 (3) protects the accused from self-incrimination and grants
him the right to keep silent on any
matter that may incriminate him. This article applies to those who are
compelled to testify as well as searches
and seizures in which an accused or the person
being searched is under no duty
to participate in the search. If a statement is made based on a finding,
it is not protected under Article 20.
(3). According to the law, an accused cannot be tortured or coerced to make a confession, nor may he be subjected to
duress in order to obtain information from him. The privilege under Article 20(3) would be used in such instances. Scientific methods that violate
the Right to Privacy, such as narco-analysis tests and polygraph
analysis, are deemed violations of Article
20(3) and can only be used in exceptional circumstances. However, as medical
research advances, the reliability of
these tests has grown, and in my opinion, these tests can be helpful tools for providing evidence for the timely disposition of cases. This paper will be mainly
focusing on Article 20 (3) of
the Indian Constitution and the case laws such as, M.P Sharma v Satish Chandra, Selvi v State of Karnataka,
Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Kanchan Bedi v Gurpreet Singh Bedi.
Article 20 (3)
of the Indian Constitution stipulates that the
defendant has the right against
self- incrimination. However,
witnesses are not afforded
the same level of protection.
The following are the safeguards provided by Article
20 (3):
·
Before
making any statements that could incriminate him or her, a defendant
must be notified of his or her rights.
·
No statements can be compelled
from a defendant.
·
In the event that a defendant is coerced
into making a self-incriminating statement,
it will not be admitted
in court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) gives defendants the Right to Remain Silent. It basically means that the defendant has the right to
withhold information which can be self-incriminating from the authorities.
To invoke their right to remain silent, the
defendant must announce their intent verbally and clearly. A defendant, for example, can state, "I am
exercising my right to remain silent and will
not answer any further inquiries."
Article 20 (3) does not apply to people who made a
voluntary confession without pressure or intimidation.
The Supreme Court expanded the breadth of this protection
by understanding the term "witness"
to include both oral and documentary evidence, ensuring
that no one can be forced to testify against
themselves.
This ban does not apply when an accused's
possession of an object or document is searched or seized.
Features of Article
20 (3):
1.
Protection of a Person Accused of an Offense:
Article 20(3) protects a
person convicted of an offense. In this context, it refers to a person who is the subject of a formal accusation and
charge. When an F.I.R. is filed, a formal charge is filed. A formal complaint is also acceptable.
Because Article 20(30) will only become effective upon the filing of a formal accusation, the trial or investigation will not
be required to commence.
This right to silence is not confined to the
case in which the person is being investigated, but also to other matters
pending against him/her
that may incriminate him in other situations.
2.Witness compulsion is prohibited:
Witness compulsion constitutes duress, and any testimony made under duress is
not admissible in court.
Duress implies a physical act and cannot be a mental state. Beating,
threatening, and imprisoning close relatives are examples of physical acts. Anyone
can be persuaded to testify
under duress. The scope of such compulsion is prohibited under Article
20(3). This was the case in State (Delhi Administration) v. Jagjit Singh.
3.It prevents
Compulsion resulting in evidence against
oneself:
An accused can be
compelled to
submit to
investigation by
providing thumb imprints
or specimens for handwriting or exposing the body
for identification purposes.
Compulsion is
required, however if a confession is made without any incentive, threat, or promise,
Article 20(3) does not apply. The accused may forgo his or her right to
self-incrimination by voluntarily making an oral statement or producing incriminating documentary proof.
The court ruled
that if an accused is given pardon under
Section 306 of the CPC, he or she will no longer be
an accused and will instead
become a witness for the prosecution.
Essentials of Article 20 (3):
1. The person accused
of an offense:
This privilege is only available to a person
accused of an offense, which is defined as "a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offense
has been leveled,
which may end in prosecution." In India, a formal accusation can be made by filing
an F.I.R. or a formal
complaint against a person accusing
him of committing a crime;
the trial or investigation does not have to begin
before a court. Article 20(3) only applies
when such a formal accusation is made. It is
critical to remember that "a person cannot claim the protection if he was
not an accused at the time he made the
statement but later becomes an accused."
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra stated that a person
whose name appears
as an accused in the first information report can seek protection under Article 20. (3). The privilege against
self- incrimination is
accessible at both the trial and pre-trial stages, i.e. when the police
investigation is ongoing
and the person is considered an accused, or even if his name is not named as an accused
in the FIR.
The appellant in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani was a
former Chief Minister who was summoned to the Vigilance Police
Station for an examination in connection with a complaint
brought against her under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947. During the investigation, she was served with an extensive list of
written questions, which she refused to answer and claimed Article 20 protection (3). The Supreme Court ruled
that the purpose of Article 20(3) is to shield the accused from unwarranted police harassment, and
that the right against self-incrimination is available to both witnesses and defendants in the same way,
and that it applies at all stages
where information is provided. The privilege under Article
20(3) applies during the stage of a police investigation when the information is obtained.
This right to silence is not confined to the
case in which the individual is being investigated, but also to other things pending against him that may incriminate
him in other situations. It was also determined that the
protection may be employed by a
suspect.
It was held in the case of Balasaheb v. State of
Maharashtra that a witness in a police case who is also an accused in the complaint for the same incident cannot
claim absolute immunity from testifying
in the case. He may, however, refuse to answer inquiries that are likely to
incriminate him.
2.
Compulsion to be a witness:
The use of the narco-analysis test as an investigative technique
raises concerns about
violations of human rights. The court concluded in
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad that it must be demonstrated that the individual was coerced into making
a statement that was likely
to incriminate him. Compulsion is duress: it should be
a tangible objective act, not a state of thought, such as beating,
threatening, or imprisoning a person's wife, parent, or child. Art.20(3)
is not applicable if a
confession is made without any enticement or intimidation.
The court concluded in State (Delhi
Administration) v. Jagjit Singh that if an accused is granted pardon under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he ceases
to be an accused and becomes a witness for the prosecution, and his evidence cannot
be used against him in subsequent instances. Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act safeguards a witness
from being prosecuted based on information he provided in a criminal process
that tends to incriminate him.
3.
Compulsion as a factor
of self evidence:
An accused may be compelled to submit to
investigation by providing thumb impressions or specimens for handwriting, or by exposing his or her body for identifying purposes.
In Kathi Kalu's
case, the court ruled that it must be proven that the witness was
coerced into making a statement that
could incriminate him. Compulsion is required, however if a confession is made
without any incentive, threat,
or promise, Article
20(3) does not apply. The accused may forgo his right against
self-incrimination by providing
a voluntary oral confession or producing incriminating documentary proof.
The accused in
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab was charged with rape and murder of an eight-year- old girl. When the deceased's body was discovered, some
strands of hair were discovered in the child's
closed fist. The police sought to analyse the accused's hair, but the accused
refused to provide a sample.
The accused was ruled to be shielded from self-incrimination by the court,
hence he had the right to decline
to provide a hair sample. However, if the right against self-incrimination is viewed in such a broad
sense, the accused may abuse
this right.
The divorce procedures for X
v. Y
were underway at the Delhi High Court on the basis of adultery. Because the preserved fetus was no
longer a part of the wife's body, the Court approved the paternity test. She was not compelled because the right against
self-incrimination does not apply to the search and seizure of documents
and other objects
pursuant to a search
warrant.
Narco Analysis Test for self incrimination:
The admissibility of scientific procedures such as narco-analysis tests, brain mapping
tests, and so on
for improving investigations has been a source of contention about whether
these tests breach Article 20's right
against self-incrimination (3). In Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court ruled that an individual's mental
state is protected under the 'Right to Privacy.' Later developments in this area revealed that the State's authority to
compel an individual to expose aspects
of his life that he desires to keep private is unconstitutional since it
violates the rights provided by Articles
20(3) and 21.
In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka,
the Supreme Court dismissed the High Court's reliance on the utility, reliability, and validity of narco analysis
tests and other such tests as means of criminal inquiry.
The Court determined that forcing an individual to undergo narco-analysis tests, polygraph
exams, and brain-mapping constitutes a necessary compulsion. Because the
responses supplied during these examinations are not given knowingly and voluntarily, the subject is unable to determine whether or not to answer a question,
resulting in testimonial compulsion, which is
protected under Article 20. (3). According to the Court, the
narco-analysis test is a cruel and inhuman
treatment that violates an individual's right to privacy. Except in
circumstances when it is necessary in
the public interest, courts cannot allow the administration of narco-analysis
tests against the will of the subject.
DNA Test and Article 20 (3):
The courts are cautious to accept DNA
evidence since it breaches an individual's right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination. The right to privacy
is an inherent right in the right to life and personal liberty, according to Article
21. However, the Supreme Court has found in a number of cases that the right to life and personal liberty
is not absolute and can be limited. In Kharak Singh
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court declared
that the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution. In rare cases, the courts
have allowed DNA tests to
be used as evidence in an investigation.
In Kanchan Bedi v. Gurpreet Singh Bedi, the
question of the infant's parentage arose, and the mother filed an application for a DNA test, which the father
objected to, claiming that his rights would
be violated. The Court ruled that when a child's parentage is in doubt,
ordering a DNA test does not
constitute a violation of basic rights. The Court relied on the decision in
Geeta Saha v. NCT of Delhi, in which
the Division Bench ordered a DNA test on the rape victim's foetus.
Right to remain Silent:
The right to remain silent
is one of the important rights guaranteed by the Indian
constitution to all people.
This rectification exists as Article 20(3) because it provides security to
those who have been blamed. Under the
Indian legal system, no one can be denied rights or treated inhumanely unless
he is proven guilty
of the offense charged.
According to
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, legitimate norms and techniques were established to ensure the denounced. The court also decided that when an individual has grasped the privilege of stillness granted by Article 20(3),
he or she shall be clearly educated. Mindfulness must be spread, and each person has the ability to recognise
that a corrective to his kindness exists. As a result, it demonstrates that no one has
the authority to provide an explanation that will influence the individual himself and reserve the option to remain silent.
It combines the freedom of expression and articulation.
Conclusion:
Article 20 (3) secures the provision of the
Constitutional Right against Self-Incrimination and allows the accused the right to remain quiet on any
matter that may incriminate him/her.
It also applies to people who are coerced to testify
and renders any evidence gathered as a result
inadmissible in court. The law also states that an accused cannot be
tortured or coerced into confessing.
Methods such as narco-analysis and polygraph examinations contradict article
20(30) and the right to privacy.
Such procedures should only be utilised in extreme circumstances. The law states that an accused is presumed
innocent unless proven guilty, and the clause in Article 20(3) is essential to accomplish
this. Article 20(3) of the Indian
Constitution preserves the accused's
rights and protects him from cruel treatment. This section is triggered by three essentials. The right is only available to an accused person, and it can
only be used in criminal procedures, not
civil ones. The accused has identical rights under Section 161(2) of the CrPC.
If a person delivers a statement that
constitutes evidence against himself lawfully and freely, it will be admissible in court. Second, it is the
officials' responsibility to convince the person that he has a right to remain
silent. In other words, every accused person must be made aware of his or her legal rights. This right is available to the
accused at any moment during the criminal proceedings. A person shall not be compelled to talk against
himself; the coercion
factor shall not exist. Third, the statement must be used as a witness
against himself. Nobody should
be forced to cremate
oneself, so this privilege is extended to everyone
on the planet.
The topic of whether
scientific testing violates
Article 20(3) is frequently raised. Unless there is a compelling reason to do anything,
anything that aids in the deduction of evidence is acceptable.
A distinction should be made, in my opinion,
between an individual's right and the process of justice. The right
to quiet is an important
clause that protects
an accused's rights during the inquiry process. No one should be forced to
cremate himself by saying anything that may come back to haunt him. However, there is a distinction between gathering
evidence and compelling someone to
speak, and hence these scientific tests are not illegal. It is critical to
acquire evidence, and in many circumstances, DNA tests aid in the pursuit of justice.
Article Information
Rights Against Self-Incrimination
Authors: Drithi Rajashekar
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/04
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.