Doctrine of Self-Incrimination

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.

Doctrine of Self-Incrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine of Self-Incrimination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine of Self-Incrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

This doctrine of self-incrimination was added in the Indian Constitution in

“Protection in respect of conviction for offences

Important Case Laws –

 Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab[6] –

 Griffin vs. California[7]-

Self-incrimination in other countries –

You might also like