PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION - EVERY ALLEGED ACCUSED SHOULD BE VIGILANT OF SUCH PROTECTION

“nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum”

No man is bound to accuse himself. The protection against self incrimination is provided under Article 20 clause 3 of Indian Constitution which states that, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The statement given by the accused, stating him guilty voluntarily without force will not lead to any violation of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.  No testimonial compulsion should be made to the alleged accused to state himself guilty of any offence. The Indian constitution has adopted this provision from the American constitution which states that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. This provision gives the accused, the Right to be silent as it is also interpreted in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which in wider aspect includes Right to remain silent in the Right to Speech and Expression. . The new scientific techniques such as narco analysis, lie detector test etc., are not permissible unless and until it is done with the consent of the accused to do it. If the accuse refuses to conduct such tests on him, then it will not lead to the Magistrate to derive on any conclusion about the case going on the accused. The harass methods followed by the police officer may lead to fear in the accused and the result will be his confession of being guilty. Hence, for avoiding this situation the Constitution as lent the responsibility in the hand of the Magistrate to look after it that the confession is not made by any force. Going by the statement provided in the Constitution which consists the following: -

1. It is a protection available to a person accused of an offence;
2. It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness against oneself; and
3. It is a protection against such “Compulsion” as resulting in his giving evidence against himself.

The words mentioned in the statement need to be explained for proper implementation of the justice. It is often seen that the laws have been in different ways by different individual, but the final aim is to achieve the end of justice. For this Article to be applied it is essential that he person should be accused for one or the other offences. The person can be referred as alleged accused even on the registration of the F.I.R in the police station or even the normal complaint filed in the Court against the individual.  Only when the above stated conditions are satisfied, Article 20(3) can be availed. This Article acts as the protection availed to the accused against testimonial compulsion. Self-incrimination has been precisely discussed in the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L Dani. In this case,  the appellant, a former Chief Minister of Orissa was asked to appear at Vigilence Police Station, for being examined in his connection to a case filed against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under S. 161/165 and 120-B and 109 of  Indian Penal Code, 1860. Based on this an investigation was started against her and she was interrogated with lengthy list of questionnaire given to her in writing. She refused to answer and claimed protection under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court ruled that the objective of Article 20(3) is to protect the accused from unnecessary police harassment and hence it extends to the stage of police investigation apart from the trial procedure.

Whether forcible applications of such tools like the lie detector test, P300 and narco analysis is not a flagrant violation of the constitutional guarantee against testimonial compulsion and the mandate that no one will be compelled to a witness against oneself according to Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, is a crucial issue to be pondered over. Whether experimental tools, the scientific efficacy of which is yet to be established and which are not permitted in any civilized criminal justice system can be held to be admissible evidence in criminal trials against persons accused of offences is the second question that flows from the previous one. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned submissions, it can be safely inferred that the administration of the three tests violates the sanctity of the fundamental right bestowed upon the citizens; hence the same should be declared unconstitutional.