Rights of Accused and the Indian Constitution
An article on “Rights of Accused and the Indian Constitution” has been written by Paramita Bhattacharyya, Sr. Assistant Professor of MIES R M Law College, an excellent law college in Bengal. MIES R M Law College is one of the best law schools in West Bengal, situated at Sonarpur, South Kolkata. It has completed many years with its glorious journey in the field of law education. MIES R M Law College is one of the best legal education providers in India under Vidyasagar University, West Bengal and approved by the Bar Council of India.
“LET HUNDREDS GO UNPUNISHED, BUT NEVER PUNISH AN INNOCENT PERSON.”
– Sir William Blackstone
Liberty brings peace to society with respect to the Rights of Accused and the Indian Constitution
Liberty brings peace to society. A person committing wrong is deprived of this liberty to the extent required by law. Curtailment of any right or liberty without applying due process of law is not permitted in a civilized society but the curtailment of such right and liberty with due process of law is the mode of enforcing the laws. If the sovereignty of society is likely to be affected by the act or omission of a man, criminal jurisprudence emerges.
Whether the act or omission is wrong is to be adjudicated by the court of law. Court will punish the wrongdoer and give justice to the victim. The result of adjudication is justice. But before the actions against the accused are taken, the accused gets an opportunity, to know why such steps are required to be taken so that in a competent forum he can explain that he has not committed any wrong. The two cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are that the prosecution must prove its charge against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt. The onus to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution. The second principle is that the essence of a criminal trial lies in that the accused is to be presumed innocent until a charge is proved against him.
Rights of Accused
All legal systems provide certain standards for the rights of the accused. The idea has been developed in human rights law and adopted both on the national and international levels. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 has acknowledged the rights of an accused person.1 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 has also accepted in its provisions the right of an accused.2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on the other hand international criminal proceedings regulations in International Criminal Tribunal, and International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice Statutes, as well as their Rules of Procedure, provide for the rights of an accused. The rights of the accused accepted by the international community are:
- Right to a fair trial
- Presumption of innocence
- Right against Double Jeopardy
- Right to be informed of charges against him or her
- Right to an expeditious trial
- Right to have time for preparation of a defence
- Right to counsel
- The right in respect of prohibition of trials in absentia
- Right to examine witnesses
- Right to an interpreter
- Right to remain silent.1
Rights of Accused under the Constitution of India:
Presumed to be Innocent:
According to Blackstone, “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers.” The essence of a criminal trial lies in that the accused is to be presumed innocent until a charge is proved against him. The right to get a fair trial and to be presumed innocent in a criminal procedure is an aspect of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 20 of the Indian Constitution states that “no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a 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 In Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani 3 it was held that no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused and that the accused has the right to keep silent during the course of an investigation.
Protection against Ex Post-Fact Law :
If an act is not an offence at the date of commission of the act, it cannot be an offence. The protection of rights of the accused afforded by clause (1) of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution is available only against conviction or sentence for a criminal offence under ex-post facto law and not against the trial. In Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (4), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced punishment in the subsequent amendment of the statute could not be applicable to the act committed by the accused before the amendment. Supreme Court further stated that the accused can take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the ex-post facto law.
Right against Double Jeopardy:
According to this doctrine, if a person is tried and acquitted or convicted of an offence, he cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence. This doctrine has been incorporated in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and is also embodied in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. There is a Common law rule i.e., “Nemo Debut Bi’s Punibi Prouno Delicto” which means that no one should be punished twice for one fault. In Leo Roy v. Superintendent District Jail1 the Court held that, if the offences are distinct the rule of Double Jeopardy will not apply.
The Prohibition against Self-incrimination :
As per provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, one is not bound to incriminate himself. The privilege against self-incrimination thus enables the maintenance of human privacy in the enforcement of criminal justice. It also goes with the maxim “Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare” which means, that 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. If the confession from the accused is derived from any physical or moral compulsion it should stand to be rejected by the court.
Right to Silence
The right against forced self-incrimination is widely known as the “Right to Silence” which is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Constitution. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that “every person is bound to answer truthfully all questions, put to him by [a police] officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose that person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture”. But where the accused makes a confession without any inducement, threat or promise article 20(3) of the Constitution does not apply. In Maneka Gandhi’s case 2 it was ruled by the Supreme Court that, the right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) should be construed with due regard to article 21.
In State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad 3, it was decided by the Supreme Court that, the involuntary neuroscientific tests violates article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Also In Selvi vs. the State of Karnataka4 it was ruled by the apex court that, techniques like narcoanalysis, Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP), brain mapping, polygraph, and lie detector tests could not be administered without the valid consent of the accused. S.C stated that the right to mental privacy will come within the ambit of articles 21 and 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Protection against arrest:
According to article 22 of the Constitution of India, no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.1
Article 22 further states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.2 But the rule shall not apply to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
In Summary – Rights of Accused and the Indian Constitution
To summarize we may conclude that, to convict an accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Such reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence on the face of the record. Only reasonable doubt favours the accused but not all doubts. The burden of prosecution never shifts in a criminal case. I suggest that under the veil of reasonable doubt no one should be victimized. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is never based upon sympathy or prejudice. The judiciary has to use and interpret the term ‘reasonable doubt’ very cautiously keeping in mind that the purpose of the law is to give justice not harm justice.
MIES R M Law College is the only law college in south Kolkata which provides three years LL.B degree course. MIES R M Law College (Under the MIES R M Foundation Trust) has a highly qualified and competent team of faculty, enormous world-class infrastructure and facilities most conducive to academic pursuit, along with its remarkably successful campus placements and student-friendly environment. We take extra care of our academically poor students. This is one of The Top Law colleges in West Bengal.
References
1 Article 9,10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
2 Article 14 Of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265192899_The_protection_of_the_accused_in_international_criminal_law_according_to_the_Human_Rights_Law_Standard (last visited on 24th July 2022)
4 Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India
5 1978 SCR (3) 608
6 AIR 1954 SC 660
7 AIR 1958 SC119,
8 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
9 AIR 1961 SC 1808
10 Criminal Appeal 1267 of; 2004: 2010(7) SCC 263
11 Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India
12 Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India
