RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF SELF-INCRIMINATION

This article is written by Aryya Sinha of Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata

ABSTRACT

In India, Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution essentially protects the idea of self-incrimination. Article 20(3) states, “No person accused of any offense shall be required to testify against himself.” This clause guarantees that people cannot be coerced into offering self-incriminating information or testifying against themselves in court.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution is analogous to India’s safeguard against self-incrimination. It guarantees people the right to keep silent and the freedom from being forced to speak up or reveal information that could be used against them.

According to this clause, a suspect in India has the right to refuse to respond to any questions asked of them by the police or during a court proceeding if those inquiries have the potential to lead to their incrimination. The silence or reluctance to respond to queries of the accused cannot be used as proof of their guilt, and they cannot be forced to testify against themselves.

It is crucial to remember that in India, this protection is not unqualified. The prohibition on self-incrimination has some exceptions. For instance, evidence may be admitted in court if a defendant willingly confesses or self-incriminates information without coercion. Additionally, regulatory provisions demand that people supply specific information, like a blood sample, in some circumstances for DNA testing.

Overall, India’s protection against being forced to testify or submit information that could result in prosecution or punishment, as stated in Article 20(3), offers people vital safety against this situation.

KEYWORDS – Article 20(3), Fifth Amendment of the US, Self-incrimination, DBA testing,

INTRODUCTION[1]

The act of incriminating oneself in a crime or offering information that could be used against oneself in a court procedure is known as self-incrimination. It is a core legal principle that guards against forcing someone to testify or reveal information that could result in prosecution or punishment. The premise that people shouldn’t be forced to testify against themselves is at the heart of the rule against self-incrimination. This notion is frequently linked to the presumption of innocence and the right to remain quiet, both fundamental tenets of numerous legal systems worldwide. The specific laws and procedures surrounding self-incrimination can differ, so it is crucial to consult the relevant laws and legal authorities in a particular jurisdiction to fully understand how self-incrimination is treated in that context. The idea of self-incrimination aims to prevent pressured confessions or inaccurate testimonies by acknowledging that people may be afraid of being unfairly prosecuted or penalized. It protects a person’s right to a fair trial and aids in ensuring justice in court proceedings.

In actuality, exercising one’s right against self-incrimination permits one to remain silent or decline to respond to a particular question when being questioned by law enforcement, testifying in court, or engaging in other legal proceedings. People can use this right to defend themselves from potential self-incrimination, protecting their constitutional and human rights.

Notably, different jurisdictions and legal systems may have varying restrictions on using self-incrimination evidence.

BACKGROUND[2]

The legal adage “Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare” translates to “No one is bound to accuse himself.” An individual cannot be coerced to testify against themselves or be used as evidence against them in a criminal prosecution; this is a fundamental rule of the legal system. It is a fundamental right protected by law in many nations worldwide. It is also called the privilege against self-incrimination or the right against self-incrimination. Roman law is the first known source of the prohibition against self-incrimination, which allows people to decline to testify against themselves in court. However, the contemporary notion of the right against self-incrimination originated in English common law. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides an anti-self-incrimination clause. However, this notion’s application to criminal victimization is relatively recent.

In the past, victims were frequently treated like simple witnesses and were sometimes forced to testify against their will. Growing awareness of crime victims’ rights, particularly their right to remain silent, emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. This was especially true in cases of sexual assault and domestic violence, where victims were frequently reluctant to come forward out of fear of being accused of a crime or stigmatized. The Bill of Rights, which included amendments, was approved in 1791. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights included the prohibition against self-incrimination. In the case of Leary v. United States, the United States Supreme Court recognized victims’ rights to decline to implicate themselves in 1972. When Timothy Leary was accused of having marijuana on him, he argued that the Fifth Amendment shielded him from being forced to testify against himself. According to the Supreme Court, the government could not force him to implicate himself.

The rights of self-incrimination victims have now developed further. The Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 further recognized crime victims’ rights, including declining cooperation with the authorities. The prohibition against self-incrimination may have been enacted in other nations at different times and with different legal frameworks. However, the precise timetable and details may change based on the government and legal system. Approximately 108 countries and authorities currently provide legal notices to suspects, including the right to remain silent and legal representation. Even though these rules vary from country to country, members of the European Union have modeled their legal systems after those of the EU. The history of victims’ rights has been a slow progression, reflecting shifts in perceptions of victims’ roles in the criminal justice system. Today, it is acknowledged that victims have significant protections and rights, such as the right to remain silent.

• Right against self-incrimination in countries around the world 

U.S.A. LAW[3]

                          The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution essentially regulates self-incrimination laws in the United States. No individual “shall be required to be a witness against himself in any criminal case,” according to the Fifth Amendment’s pertinent section. The privilege against self-incrimination is the name given to this provision.

The following are some of the fundamental rights that protect individuals against self-incrimination in the United States:

1. The right to remain silent: This right allows individuals to refuse to answer any questions that may incriminate them, whether interrogated by law enforcement or questioned in court.
2. The right to an attorney: Individuals have the right to an attorney during any police questioning or court proceeding. An attorney can help ensure that the individual’s rights are protected and that they do not incriminate themselves.
3. The right to plead the Fifth: In any criminal trial, individuals can refuse to answer any questions that may incriminate them by pleading the Fifth Amendment. This means that they can choose not to testify against themselves.
4. The right to a fair trial: The Constitution guarantees individuals the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense. This right protects individuals from being convicted based on coerced confessions or other forms of self-incrimination.

Britain Law:

The laws of the United Kingdom do not expressly protect the right against self-incrimination. However, some legal guidelines and protections are in place to guarantee that a person is not forced to divulge information that could implicate them. In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to demonstrate their innocence or offer any information that could be used against them. In the UK, the accused is deemed innocent until the prosecution establishes their guilt by the “innocent until proven guilty” premise. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides certain safeguards during police investigations, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal advice. Under PACE, the police must caution the suspect before questioning them, and any statement made by the suspect must be voluntary and not obtained by oppression, threat, or promise. If a witness refuses to testify in court or is questioned by the police, the court may find against them. This implies that the court may consider silence or refusal when determining guilt or innocence. In conclusion, even if the right against self-incrimination is not expressly recognized by UK law, legal safeguards, and standards ensure that the accused is not forced to divulge information that could be used against them.

Indian Law:[4]

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination. All citizens in India are guaranteed fundamental rights, including the prohibition against self-incrimination, by the 1950-adopted Indian Constitution. India’s concept of self-incrimination is influenced by many different legal systems and international human rights norms, among other things. Fairness, justice, and the protection of individual rights were the goals of those who drafted the Indian Constitution.

Article 20(3) states, “No person accused of any offense shall be required to testify against himself.” This clause guarantees people the right to stay silent and the freedom from being coerced into testifying or offering information that could be used against them in court.

The English legal system and the common law concepts of justice impact India’s prohibition against self-incrimination. Like its British counterpart, the Indian legal system is aware of the possibility of mistreatment and coercion during detention and criminal procedures. By incorporating the right to remain silent as a fundamental right, the Indian Constitution’s drafters aimed to allay these worries. The self-incrimination statute in India has been interpreted and developed significantly by Indian courts. The scope and applicability of the right against self-incrimination have been made clear by significant decisions from the Supreme Court of India. These rulings have emphasized how crucial it is to safeguard an accused person’s right to remain silent and ensure that nobody is forced to testify against themselves.

It’s important to remember that while the Indian Constitution protects the privilege of not being forced to testify against oneself, there are some restrictions and exceptions. For instance, a confession made voluntarily and without compulsion may be used as evidence in court.

India’s self-incrimination prohibition, reflected in Article 20(3), demonstrates the nation’s dedication to upholding individual rights, maintaining the fairness of criminal processes, and avoiding coerced confessions or testimonies. It is still a crucial component of Indian law and continues to change due to judicial interpretation.

What are the ingredients of Article 20(3) 

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides the right against self-incrimination. The following are the key ingredients of this provision:

1. Privilege against self-incrimination: According to Article 20(3), the accused is protected from being forced to testify against themselves and has the right to remain silent.

1. Applies to criminal cases only: Only in criminal procedures, not civil or other actions, does the privilege against self-incrimination apply.
2. Accused as a witness: The accused person has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to act as a witness against themself.
3. Protection against testimonial compulsion: Any information implicating the accused cannot be demanded of them, including declarations made under pressure, threat, or compulsion.
4. Protection against torture or inhumane treatment: Force, torture, or any other harsh treatment cannot coerce an accused person into confessing to a crime.
5. Applicable during the trial: Force, torture, or any other harsh treatment cannot be used to coerce an accused person into confessing to a crime.

Overall, Article 20(3) is an essential safeguard to protect the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings and ensure that they are not compelled to provide evidence that may incriminate them.

ISSUE OR THE TOPIC 

A cornerstone of criminal law recognized in many legal systems around the globe is the prohibition of self-incrimination. This right shields people from being compelled to give information or testify in a way that could bring them into conflict with the law.

However, the rights of those who self-incriminate are subject to some problems.

Compelling a victim to testify: A victim may occasionally be called a witness by the prosecution in a criminal trial. The victim, however, may decline to testify if they think their testimony could implicate themselves. In these circumstances, the trial might attempt to coerce the victim into testifying, raising concerns about the privilege against self-incrimination. In the instance of Kathi Kalu, it was decided that it had to be conclusively proven that the witness was forced to make a statement that would likely implicate him. Compulsion is necessary, but if a confession is made without coercion, difficulties, or a pledge, Article 20(3) does not apply. 

The indicted may freely give an oral statement or present factual evidence that is incriminatory in nature to waive his right against self-incrimination. Similar cases to Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab are rare. The fascinating case of X v. Y involved divorce proceedings in the Delhi High Court based on adultery. Because it was no longer a part of the wife’s body, the court established the paternity of the preserved fetus. She was not coerced since searches and seizures of documents or other materials carried out in accordance with a search warrant are exempt from the prohibition against self-incrimination.

Narco-Analysis Test and Self-Incrimination: A sedative or truth serum is administered to the subject during a narco-analysis exam to establish a hypnotic state, which allows for questioning to gather information. Due to worries about how using narco-analysis tests may affect the right against self-incrimination, there has been discussion about its usage in India. The right to self-incrimination, protected by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, has been ruled violated by the use of narco-analysis tests, according to the Supreme Court of India. This is because narco-analysis tests force the participant to make declarations that they might not have made voluntarily, which could implicate them.

Additionally, using narco-analysis tests raises questions about the validity and admissibility of the evidence gathered using such methods. The patient may be prone to suggestibility or false recollections, resulting in reliable or accurate information. Narco-analysis tests have been generally prohibited in India due to these worries. According to the Supreme Court, any statements made during a narco-analysis test are not admissible as evidence in court.

DNA Test and Self Incrimination: DNA testing is a scientific method that examines a person’s DNA sample to determine or confirm that person’s identity, paternity, or genetic information. DNA testing may occasionally be presented as proof in court trials. The right against self-incrimination is called into doubt by DNA testing in criminal proceedings. A DNA sample, such as one taken from blo (hhhd, 2)od or saliva, may be requested from an accused person. If the DNA evidence matches that found at the crime scene, the accused person may be found guilty. In some jurisdictions, specific legal protections may constrain DNA testing to preserve the right against self-incrimination.

A DNA sample, such as one taken from blood or saliva, may be requested from an accused person. If the DNA evidence matches that found at the crime scene, the accused person may be found guilty. In some jurisdictions, specific legal protections may constrain DNA testing to preserve the right against self-incrimination. For instance, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizens against self-incrimination, and the Supreme Court has ruled that taking DNA samples may be considered self-incrimination.

STATUTE AND CASE LAWS

Cases related to self-incrimination often revolve around the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This protection allows individuals to refuse to answer questions or provide evidence that could potentially incriminate them in a crime. Here are a few notable cases related to self-incrimination:

1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This landmark Supreme Court case established the “Miranda rights” or “Miranda warnings.” The suspect must be informed of their right to stay silent and to have a counsel present during questioning before law enforcement can interview them, the court decided.
2. Kastigar v. United States (1972): The Supreme Court held that if a defendant claims their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the government can grant immunity from prosecution for their testimony. The exemption ensures that the testimony provided cannot be used against the defendant in subsequent criminal proceedings.
3. United States v. Hubbell (2000): This case involved the issue of whether a person could be compelled to produce self-incriminating documents in response to a subpoena. The Supreme Court held that producing documents can be self-incriminating if it communicates information unknown to the government.
4. Salinas v. Texas (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that a suspect’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence can be used against them in court if they fail to invoke their right to remain silent. However, post-arrest, post-Miranda silence is protected under the Fifth Amendment.

These are just a few examples, but numerous historical cases have dealt with various aspects of self-incrimination and the scope of Fifth Amendment protections. It’s important to consult legal resources for the most up-to-date and comprehensive information on specific cases.

CASES RELATED TO SELF – INCRIMINATION IN INDIA.

According to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, “no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” the right against self-incrimination is protected in India.

Here are a few notable cases related to self-incrimination in India:

1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the accused has the right to remain silent during the investigation and cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves. It emphasized that the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right under Article 20(3).
2. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): The Supreme Court ruled that compelling an accused person to make a statement against themselves would violate the right against self-incrimination. The court held that statements obtained under coercion or inducement cannot be used as evidence.
3. State of Bombay v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak (1982): The court held that an accused person’s refusal to give his fingerprints, specimen handwriting, or voice samples could not be treated as substantive evidence against them. The right against self-incrimination includes the right to refuse to give evidence of a testimonial nature.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that administering narco-analysis, brain mapping, and lie detector tests violates an individual’s right against self-incrimination. The court held that these techniques cannot be used as evidence without the voluntary consent of the accused.

These cases highlight the importance of the right against self-incrimination in the Indian legal system and guide its interpretation and application. It’s essential to consult legal resources for more detailed information on specific cases and any recent developments in this area of law.

CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, Self-Incrimination is a fundamental right that individuals can use to provide evidence against themselves in a criminal case. To guarantee that people are treated fairly and justly in the criminal justice system, they must have the right to self-incrimination. Self-incrimination problems, however, can occur due to pressured confessions, a lack of legal counsel, and abusive interrogation techniques. Governments may grant people the right to remain silent, access to legal counsel, restrictions on how they are interrogated, immunity or leniency, or constitutional or legislative reform to address these problems. In the end, safeguarding the privilege against self-incrimination is necessary to sustain the values of justice, fairness, and human rights in criminal proceedings.

---

[1] John Rokutani – Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, and Due Process of Law: The Fifth Amendment of Law (Bill of Rights). Online publication date :15^th August 2017.

[2] Self-incrimination – Wikipedia

[3] Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

[4] Dr. Jayashri Das: The Right Against Self Incrimination: Privacy-Lefally Debate. Publication Date: 1January 2018.