E-Paper
Accused have right to silence, can’t be forced to speak: Supreme Court
All accused have a right to silence and investigators cannot force them to speak up or admit guilt , the Supreme Court said on Thursday, emphasising that the Constitution accords every person a right against self-incrimination.
All accused have a right to silence and investigators cannot force them to speak up or admit guilt , the Supreme Court said on Thursday, emphasising that the Constitution accords every person a right against self-incrimination.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said that “cooperation” with an investigation cannot mean “confession”, and thus the investigating agency cannot make out a case against the accused just because they choose to remain silent.
“Cooperation cannot mean confession...Why cannot he (accused) choose to remain silent? When the Constitution gives every person a right to remain silent, how can this be raised against as an argument of non-cooperation?” asked the bench, as it heard a criminal case from Uttar Pradesh.
The right to silence emanates from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which states that no one can be compelled to be a witness against himself. The provision gives an accused the right against self-incrimination -- a fundamental canon of law.
Under criminal law jurisprudence, it is considered the duty of the prosecution to prove a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Until proven otherwise, the accused remains innocent. An accused’s decision to remain silent can be construed as a negative inference in certain circumstances but it cannot absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove the guilt of that person beyond reasonable doubts, the court reasoned.
The case before the Supreme Court involved a doctor couple with the wife levelling charges of dowry harassment and assault against the man. While the Allahabad high court in February dismissed the pre-arrest bail plea of the man, the Supreme Court in May protected him from arrest.
When the matter came up for a hearing on Thursday, the man’s lawyer sought an adjournment by one or two weeks, but the wife’s lawyer strongly objected to it. Asked by the bench, the wife’s lawyer contended that the man has not been cooperating with the investigation and thus, he does not deserve any indulgence of the court.
To this, the bench retorted that one cannot argue that an accused is not cooperating on the basis that he has not confessed to all the charges. “You will keep saying he has not cooperated until he confessed to everything alleged against him. But that’s not how the criminal law jurisprudence and the Constitution view it,” it said.
Referring to the constitutional right of every person to not speak against himself or to remain silent, the court added that it cannot deprive a person of his liberty merely because there is a statement that he has not admitted his crimes.
The bench then proceeded to extend the interim bail of the man and asked the couple to mull over a shot at mediation to resolve differences amicably. It deferred the proceedings by four weeks.
