Upgrad LLM

artical 20 (3)

मैं एक प्रकरण में अभियुक्त हूं और एसीजेएम
कोर्ट ने मुझे आवाज का नमूना देने के लिए कोर्ट में उपस्थित होने के लिए नोटिस जारी किया है। मैने कोर्ट में उपस्थित होकर जवाब पेश किया है कि अनुच्छेद 20(3) में अभियुक्त को यह संरक्षण प्राप्त है कि कोई भी न्यायालय अभियुक्त को अपने ही विरुद्ध गवाही देने के लिए बाध्य नहीं कर सकता है।
इससे संबंधित जो भी रुलिंग है वो मुझे मेल कर मेरा सहयोग करने की कृपा करें। मेरा मुवक्किल इसमें फंसा हुआ है और आवाज का नमूना नहीं देना चाहता है। क्या कोर्ट उसे आवाज का नमूना देने के लिए मजबूर कर सकता है।

The ratio in this question had been pronunced by the Supreme Court at para 18 of the Judgment in Ritesh Sinha vs State of U.P.& Anr as early as 7 December, 2012:

"18. Applying the test laid down by this court in Kathi Kalu Oghad which is relied upon in Selvi, I have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that if an accused person is directed to give his voice sample during the course of investigation of an offence, there is no violation of his right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Voice sample is like finger print impression, signature or specimen handwriting of an accused. Like giving of a finger print impression or specimen writing by the accused for the purposes of investigation, giving of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation cannot be included in the expression “to be a witness”. By giving voice sample the accused does not convey information based upon his personal knowledge which can incriminate him. A voice sample by itself is fully innocuous. By comparing it with tape recorded conversation, the investigator may draw his conclusion but, voice sample by itself is not a testimony at all. When an accused is asked to give voice sample, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a personal testimony. When compared with the recorded conversation with the help of mechanical process, it may throw light on the points in controversy. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination that by giving voice sample, the accused conveyed any information based upon his personal knowledge and became a witness against himself. The accused by giving the voice sample merely gives ‘identification data’ to the investigating agency. He is not subjected to any testimonial compulsion. Thus, taking voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution."

Total likes : 2 times



Very well analysed, explained and advised by expert Mr. P Venu, I fully agree and appreciate his acumen.

Concept behind making statement against himself is termed as "self- incrimination"

Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

In many legal systems, accused criminals cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves—they may choose to speak to police or other authorities, but they cannot be punished for refusing to do so. There are 108 countries and jurisdictions that currently issue legal warnings to suspects, which include the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel.. These laws are not uniform across the world, however members of the European Union have developed their laws around the EU's guide.



Total likes : 1 times




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x