INTRODUCTION
In India, the Constitution serves as the ‘law of the land’ and is the supreme law of the nation. Part III of the constitution enshrines the fundamental rights of people of India, to ensure their protection and well- being at all the times. Though these rights are subjected to hold, they cannot be taken away from the people. One such right of the people facing legal charges is provided under article 20 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 20[1] provides protection to the people in cases of accusation of offences against them; the three express rights under this article are those:
- No person can be convict for an act; that is not an offence at the time of the commission of such act; or can he be punish with an increase punishment than what was prescribe for the commission of such an offence; at the time of the commission of the offence.
- No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
- No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
In this article, we will look into the implied expressions of Article 20(3) which gives the ‘Right against self- incrimination’.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT VIA RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
The Indian Legal System provides the accused a right to not be forced or be threatened. So as to give evidence against himself; which may lead to any direct questions in the scene in question. Or that may be useful to prove his guilt in the court of law. It is not only inside the court premises that he has such a right. But it being a fundamental right is of paramount consideration. So any accused cannot be asked to answer any question or to provide anything; that would bring him closer to his conviction.
In this principle of ‘right against self- incrimination’ lies the ‘right to remain silent’ as an implied rule of law. The accused or any witness when being examined in the court of law in relation to any subject matter; he/she can chose to not answer any of the question put forth before. The court will not dig deeper into the reasoning behind it. This is to ensure that the innocent people do not get scare and give false evidence in the court of law in cases. Especially involving top class criminals.
Court’s View
The Hon’ble Court in the case of M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra[2] explained that: “The Indian Constitution under Art.20 (3) provides for the Right to remain silent impliedly, which extends not only during the trial, but also to the interrogation and investigation.”
In the leading case of Miranda vs. Arizona[3], the United Nations Supreme Court has also conferred the same. It expressed that: Accused cannot be forced to answer such questions that when views in isolation or in together has an answer that would be a reasonable prospect of exposing him to be a guilty person in either the current accusation against him or any other act.”
CrPC
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under Sections 161(2)[4] and 313(3)[5] also provide for ‘right to remain silent’ in the court of law. Section 161(2) provides for such right during the interrogation by the police; also the accused is not bound to sign or acknowledge anything. Basically that state before the investigating officers during the interrogation so as to avoid usage of force against the accused to threaten him for false or incorrect evidence. On the other hand, Sec. 313(3) provides for the right to remain silent during the trial i.e., during the proceedings before the court of law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Satpathy vs. P L Dani [6]explained that: ‘The CrPC protects the right to remain silent of the accused and so he/ she shall not be liable for any punishment because the accused did not answer/ refused to answer a question put to him which in his opinion is an incriminating question either with regard to the already existing charges against him in question or any other charge that may arise in future.’
Indian Evidence Act
Further, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 under section 25[7] explains that: Nothing confessed to the police officer shall be used as a proof against him in future. However, this does not provide for complete coverage of the accused and his wordings. Such statements made by the accused before the police officer can be used as secondary/corroborative evidence against him in the court of law.
However, this right to remain silent extends only to the accused; and not any other person. The same was held by the Hon’ble in repetitive circumstances that the right of the accused cannot be extended to any other person and so, a person other than accused can be compelled by the court to answer such questions that would not render any conviction against him if the court feels it necessary to do so; to deliver justice.
Also, this right of the accused does not stop the investigating authorities to utilize their power of ‘Search and Seizure’ that has been provided under the CrPC. Further, the accused can be subjected to a medical examination; wherever necessary; as in cases such as rape, sexual offences, domestic violence, an accused who has indeed committed the offence shall give consent to the medical examinations which help the court to render justice. Hence, conduction of medical examinations even in nature of lie detection tests, macro analysis or any other tests, to know the truth behind the subject matter in question is not a violation of the ‘right to remain silent’ as in such tests, though the administration of the test may not be with the consent; his statements made during the test would be purely out of his consent as no threat can be possible at that state of mind.
CONCLUSION
Thereby, the Indian Constitution, which is one of the longest written constitutions of the world, ensures the protection of accused, as the legal system is based on the adversarial system which presumes the accused to be innocent until proven guilty beyond the reasonable doubt and so provides the accused with a fundamental right against self- incrimination that reads into ‘right to remain silent.’
References:
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/
[2] AIR 1954 SC 300
[3] 384 U.S. 436. 1965
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1110422/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/
[6] 1978 AIR 1025
0 Comments