Introduction –
The Indian Constitution is said to safeguard the fundamental rights of all its citizens. As envisaged in Article 20 (3), the doctrine of self-incrimination is one of the fundamental rights given to an offender. Self Incrimination means giving evidence that might reflect the involvement of the person in a crime. It is usually a testimony or a declaration given before or during a trial. Under this provision, a person cannot stand as a witness for one’s own crime. The burden to prove that the accused is guilty lies on the prosecution; the accused cannot be forced to stand as a witness against himself.
This doctrine of self-incrimination was added in the Indian Constitution in pertinence to the provision stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which says – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law[1].” The doctrine of self-incrimination is based on the maxim ‘nemo tenetur seipsum accusare’[2]which means no man, not even the accused himself can be compelled to answer any question, which may tend to prove him guilty of a crime, he has been accused of. The accused if voluntarily testifies against him then the police are obligated to tell the accused that he has no legal obligation to do so.
Article 20 (3) reads as –
“Protection in respect of conviction for offences
. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”[3]
This right is only available to the person who is accused of the offence as stated in Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. In a particular case, an individual’s name was mentioned as accused in the FIR. The Police and the magistrate awarded him the protection of this right.
Right to Silence –
The right to silence which includes a privilege against self-incrimination is closely related to the presumption of innocence[4]. This right has various faces which are inclusive of:
- The state or the prosecution has the burden to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime that is charged on him.
- An accused is always presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
- An accused has a right to remain silent that is to say he cannot be forced to speak against himself.
Section 313 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code also protects right to remain silent during trial. The section states that the accused should not be considered liable for punished on the grounds he refuses to speak against him and answers falsely. This provision was added in the Indian Constitution to protect the accused from unnecessary harassment of the Police or the Magistrate.
Important Case Laws –
- Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani[5] –
In this case, a former Chief Minister was called for the purpose of examination for a case filed against her. In the investigation, she was asked to answer a long list of question to which she refused. The Supreme Court held that the right against self-incrimination is valid at every stage of examination. The privilege under Article 20 (3) is applied at the stage of police examination when the information is extracted.
- Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab[6] –
In the case, the accused had charges of rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl. Near the body of the deceased few strands of here were found. The police wanted to verify it with those of the accused and the accused refused to do so. The court found that the accused has the right against self-incrimination.
- Griffin vs. California[7]-
In the following case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that at trial, if the accused invokes his right of self-incrimination, then neither the prosecution nor the judge may state the jury that the silence is evidence that the defendant is making an admission of guilt.
Self-incrimination in other countries –
- United States of America –
The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution provides for no person shall be forced in any criminal case to a witness against himself.
- Canada –
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom protects witnesses against self – incrimination which in enshrined in Section 13 of the Charter[8].
- Britain –
In Britain, it is a fundamental principle of the common law that an accused of an offence shall not be compelled to furnish documents and evidence which proves him guilty.
Sources:
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
[2] Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638
[4] https://lawtimsejournal.in/doctrine-of-self-incrimination/
[5] Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.Dani 1978 AIR 1025, 1978 SCR (3) 608
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1834230/
[7] Griffin vs. California 380 U.S. 609 (1965)
[8] https://lawtimesjournal .in/doctrine-of-self-incrimination/
This blog is written by Jaya Singh, Amity University.
Some of her blogs-
- MISCHIEF under Indian Penal Code
- Offences Relating To Election under IPC
- Bigamy and Cohabitation
- Unlawful Assembly & Rioting with Affray
- The doctrine of Double Jeopardy
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
