Common Misconceptions Regarding Protection Against Self-Incrimination Under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution with FAQ

Common Misconceptions Regarding Protection Against Self-Incrimination Under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution with FAQ

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself. It is based on the legal maxim “Nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum”, which means "No man is obliged to be a witness against himself."

However, there are some common misconceptions regarding the scope and application of this right. In this article, we will try to clarify some of them.

Misconception 1: The right is available only to the accused in a criminal trial.

The right against self-incrimination is not limited to the accused in a criminal trial. It extends to any person who is accused of an offence, whether in a formal charge or in an investigation or inquiry. The actual trial or enquiry doesn't need to commence before the court or tribunal.

The Supreme Court has held that the right can be claimed by a person who is summoned as a witness in any proceeding, civil or criminal, if his testimony may expose him to criminal liability. The right can also be claimed by a person who is subjected to search or seizure of his property or documents, if they may incriminate him.

Misconception 2: The right covers only oral evidence.

The right against self-incrimination covers not only oral evidence but also documentary evidence and any other material that may have evidentiary value. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word ‘witness’ in Article 20(3) to include both oral and documentary evidence so that no person can be compelled to produce any document or object that may support a prosecution against himself.

However, the right does not cover physical evidence, such as fingerprints, blood samples, DNA samples, etc., that are obtained by scientific tests or techniques. The Supreme Court has held that such evidence does not amount to testimonial compulsion, as they do not involve any statement or communication by the person.

Misconception 3: The right can be waived by the person.

The right against self-incrimination cannot be waived by the person voluntarily or by consent. It is a constitutional safeguard that cannot be given up or bargained away by the person. The Supreme Court has held that any statement or confession made by the person under inducement, threat, promise or deception is inadmissible in evidence, as it violates Article 20(3).

The only exception to this rule is when the person makes a statement or confession before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such a statement or confession is admissible in evidence, provided it is made voluntarily and without any coercion or influence.

Misconception 4: The right applies only to statements made by the person.

The right against self-incrimination applies not only to statements made by the person but also to statements made by others that may implicate him. The Supreme Court has held that no person can be compelled to answer any question or produce any document that may incriminate another person who is accused of an offence.

This means that if a person is asked to disclose the name or identity of his accomplice or co-accused, he can refuse to do so on the ground of Article 20(3). Similarly, if a person is asked to produce any document or object that may incriminate another person who is accused of an offence, he can refuse to do so on the same ground.

Conclusion

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is a vital provision that protects a person from being forced to incriminate himself in any criminal proceeding. However, there are some common misconceptions regarding its scope and application. By clarifying these misconceptions, we hope to enhance the understanding and appreciation of this fundamental right among the people.

 

FAQ on Common Misconceptions Regarding Protection Against Self-Incrimination Under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution

 

Q: What is the meaning of self-incrimination?

A: Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself to criminal prosecution by giving evidence or testimony that may prove one’s guilt.

Q: What is the right against self-incrimination?

A: The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

Q: When can a person claim the right against self-incrimination?

A: A person can claim the right against self-incrimination when he is accused of an offence, whether in a formal charge or in an investigation or inquiry. He can also claim the right when he is summoned as a witness or subjected to search or seizure of his property or documents, if they may incriminate him.

Q: What are the types of evidence covered by the right against self-incrimination?

A: The right against self-incrimination covers both oral and documentary evidence, as well as any other material that may have evidentiary value. However, it does not cover physical evidence, such as fingerprints, blood samples, DNA samples, etc., that are obtained by scientific tests or techniques.

Q: Can a person waive the right against self-incrimination?

A: No, a person cannot waive the right against self-incrimination voluntarily or by consent. It is a constitutional safeguard that cannot be given up or bargained away by the person. The only exception is when the person makes a statement or confession before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Q: Does the right against self-incrimination apply only to statements made by the person?

A: No, the right against self-incrimination applies not only to statements made by the person but also to statements made by others that may implicate him. No person can be compelled to answer any question or produce any document that may incriminate another person who is accused of an offence.