CAN A PERSON ALLEGATED OF AN OFFENCE SEEK PROTECTION UNDER
ARTICLE 20(3) OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution states that “no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The ingredients to seek protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution is that: • The person should be an accused of an offence • The accused compelled to be witness • The accused compelled to give evidence against himself In order to seek protection under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution, a person shall be formally accused for an offence levelled on him resulting to prosecution. A formal accusation may include lodging of First Information Report, formal complaint filed against a person and it is not necessary that a trail or inquiry to be commenced against him. This also makes clear that no person can claim protection, if at time he made the statement he was not accused but becomes an accused afterwards. This doesn’t apply to department enquiries against the government servants as they can’t be said to be “accused of an offence”. JUDGEMENT • M P Sharma V. Satish Chandra[AIR 1954 SC 300]: The Court held that a person whose name mentioned in First Information Report (FIR) as an accused can claim protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. This privilege available at both trail and pre- trail stage i.e, when the police investigation is going on, a person regarded as the accused or even if name not mentioned as accused. • Nandhini Satpathy V. P L Dani [AIR 1977 SC 1025]: Former Chief Minister called by Vigilance Police for purpose of examination for case under Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and she denied to answer list of questions by claiming protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. The Court held that this article aim at protection of accused from unnecessary police harassment and right against self incrimination available to witness and accused in the same manner at every stage where information is furnished. Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution is applicable at stage of police investigation when the information extracted. The right to remain silent can be used as protection by suspect as well. • Balkrishan A Devidayal V. State of Maharashtra[1981 AIR 379]: Under Section 173 of CrPC powers officers to submit Investigation report or charge sheet. RPF officers (Railway Police Force) are not empowered under section 173 so the complaint filed by them against accused can’t be treated as a formal accusation or complaint so he cannot claim privilege or protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. • Maneck V. Naryananlal[AIR 1959 Bom 320]: Formal accusation against person required to assert rule against self incrimination. This rule not applied based only on general investigation and inquiries. • Joseph v. Narayana[AIR 1964 SC 1552]: It was held that a person is said to be an accused of an offence when an accusation of committing an offence is put against him and accusation is of such nature that it will led to further prosecution of the accused. • Vera Ibrahim V. State of Maharashtra[AIR 1976 SC 1167]: It was observed that no benefit under this Article is available to a person who is arrested on mere suspicion without FIR being filed against him or if there is immaterial information in Panchanama Report as such person would not be coming under the ambit of “formal accusations.” Meaning thereby, it was the opinion of the Hon’ble Court that this right extends to only those against whom a formal accusation has been levelled. • Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujrat[(1991) 4 SCC 406]: It was clarified that a party who is alleged to be in contempt of court will not be covered by the head of “accused person” for the purposes of Article 20(3). The benefits under the said Article only extend to criminal proceedings and contempt proceedings are not a part of it. • B. Shah V. D. K. Guha[AIR 1964 SC 1196]: The question, at what step a person suspect can avail the privileges under this provision was answered by the court. It was opined that after the addition of the name of the person so accused of an offence is entered into the FIR and an order of the Magistrate for further investigation is passed, the protection under this Article can be pursued. • Balasaheb V. State of Maharashtra[1994 Cri LJ 3044]: It was observed that a witness in one case who is also an accused in another case pertaining to same subject matter would not be in position to claim absolute immunity or protection but he may deny to respond to those questions which tend to incriminate him. CONCLUSION Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution aims to shield citizens from Authorities pointless activities. It safeguards against Legislative, Executive and Judicial activities. It provides protection against self- incrimination and gives the accused the right to remain silent over any matter which tends to incriminate him. This article extends to the persons who are compelled to be a witness and also covers searches and seizures wherein, an accused or the person being searched is under no obligation to be a part of the search. If any statement is made on some finding then it will not be protected under Article 20(3). The law says that an accused cannot be tortured or forced to make a confession and no duress can be exercised on him to obtain information out of him. In such cases, the privilege under Article 20(3) would be attracted.
Proportionality Means That Any Action Should Not Be More Drastic Than It Ought To Be For Obtaining The Desired Result Implying That A Cannon Cannot Be Used To Kill A Sparrow