This article is authored by Gauri Bansal and edited by Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR and Adv. Prapti Singh.
SC/0139/1978
FACTS
The former Chief Minister of Orissa Nandini Sathpathy, was instructed to appear before the police in Cuttack with regard to a vigilance case against her. She was provided with questions in relation to her alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. She thereafter exercised her right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and refused to answer the questions.
Article 20(3) guarantees that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself.
Upon her refusal to answer questions, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filled a complaint against her for refusal to answer a public servant authorized to question as provided under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code. She challenged a magistrate’s decision to issue her summons of appearance stating that Article 20(3) and the immunity under Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when the High Court refused to entertain her petition, she appealed to the Supreme Court.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
- What is the scope and meaning of Article 20(3) in the Constitution of India as regards the term “accused” and “compelled to be a witness against oneself”?
- What is the meaning and scope of Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code? Does Mens rea form a necessary component of section 129 L.P.C., and, if so, what is its precise nature? Can a mere apprehension that
- any answer has a guilty potential salvage the accused or bring itinto play?
HELD
The Court took a considerably wide view of the scope of Article 20(3) holding that its prohibitive scope extends not only to the procedure in Court but also at the stage of Investigation.
The ban on self-accusation is not confined to the offence regarding which interrogation is made, but extends to other offences about which the accused has reasonable apprehension of implication from his answer.
Guarding against involuntary self-crimination in the face of pressure from police officers, the Court found “compelled testimony violative of Article 20(3). It read,
“compelled testimony” to mean evidence procured not only by physical threats and violence but also as psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring Interrogative prolixity, overbearing and intimidatory methods.
It also held that legal perils following upon refusal to answer, or answer truthfully, cannot be regarded as compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3)
The Court suggested, the presence of a lawyer during the course of interrogation, as a solution to the problem of self-crimination secured through secrecy or coercion.
Mens rea is an essential ingredient of Section 179 of the IPC (refusing to answer public servant authorized to question) Although an offence cannot be made under it in case there is an apprehension of implication on answering the questions put forth by the public authorities, an accused cannot deny to do the same on unreasonable and vague apprehensions and possibilities. The Court held that an accused was bound to answer where there is no clear tendency to criminate.
