Rights of the Accused - Detailed Notes

Rights of the Accused

Introduction

The concept of a free and fair trial is a constitutional commitment, revolving around the principle of natural justice, ensuring humane treatment even for the accused. Accused persons are granted certain fundamental rights during investigation, inquiry, or trial, protecting them against arbitrary or illegal arrest.

Constitutional Rights

Protection against Ex-Post-Facto Law

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides protection against ex-post-facto laws, consisting of two parts:

1. No person shall be convicted except for violating a law in force at the time of the offense. A later enacted law cannot make a previously non-criminal act an offense.

2. A person cannot receive a penalty greater than what was applicable at the time of the offense. An ex-post-facto law cannot increase the punishment.

Only conviction or sentencing is prohibited under Article 20(1), not the trial itself. There is no fundamental right to be tried by a particular court or procedure unless it involves discrimination or violation of another fundamental right.

K. Satwat Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 266)

Section 420 of the IPC had no minimum fine, allowing unlimited fines. A later ordinance prescribed a minimum fine for convictions under S.420. The Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) was not infringed because the minimum penalty was not greater than what could have been inflicted under S.420 at the time of the offense.

Ratanlal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444)

A 16-year-old boy was convicted of house trespass and outraging the modesty of a 7-year-old girl and sentenced to 5 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. After the judgment, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, came into force, stating that persons under 21 should not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment.

The Supreme Court held that the beneficial interpretation allowed ex-post-facto law to reduce punishment. An ex-post-facto law beneficial to the accused is not prohibited by Article 20(1).

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy prevents a person from being punished twice for the same offense. Article 20(2) states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.

This doctrine is based on the English common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una iti eadem causa, meaning no man shall be punished twice for the same cause.

In the Indian Constitution, Double Jeopardy is incorporated under Article 20(2) as a fundamental right.

The word 'prosecution' limits the scope of protection under Article 20(2). If there is no punishment, Article 20(2) does not apply. An appeal against acquittal is a continuation of the prosecution.

Venkataraman vs. Union of India (AIR 1954 SC 375)

An inquiry was made against the appellant under the Public Service Enquiry Act, resulting in dismissal from service. Later, he was charged under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the initial inquiry was not a prosecution for an offense, so the second prosecution did not attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2).

Right against Self-Incrimination

Article 20(3) states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

The accused is presumed innocent, and the prosecution must establish guilt. The accused need not make any statement against their will.

The right against forced self-incrimination, known as the Right to Silence, is in the CrPC and the Indian Constitution. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sec 180 BNSS) states that every person must answer truthfully to a police officer, except for questions that could expose them to a criminal charge, penalty, or forfeiture.

This principle is based on the maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare, meaning "No man is bound to accuse himself."

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808)

The Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination by the accused. Self-incrimination means conveying information based on personal knowledge. It does not include the mechanical process of producing documents without any statement based on personal knowledge. Giving thumb impressions, or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings are not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025)

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Orissa, was directed to appear at a Vigilance Police Station for examination related to a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and other sections of the IPC. She refused to answer questions, claiming protection under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20(3) protects the accused from unnecessary police harassment and extends to the police investigation stage. The accused has the right to silence during interrogation.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC 1974)

The Supreme Court held that no individual should be forcibly subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph examination, and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test, as it is an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, any information or material discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results can be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Right to Consult a Lawyer

Article 22(1) of the Constitution recognizes an arrested person’s right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner. It states that no arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds for arrest or be denied the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.

Section 303 of CrPC (Sec 340 BNSS) also provides that any person accused of an offense may be defended by a pleader of their choice.

Other Rights in India

Right to Free Legal Aid

Article 39-A states that the State shall ensure equal opportunity and provide free legal aid to ensure that justice is not denied due to economic or other disabilities.

Section 304 CrPC (Sec 341 BNSS) states that in a trial before the Court of Session, if the accused is not represented by a pleader and lacks sufficient means, the Court shall assign a pleader at the expense of the State.

Khatri vs State of Bihar (1981 SCR (2) 408)

The Supreme Court held that access to a legal practitioner is implicit in Article 21, which gives the fundamental right to life and liberty. The state must provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person, not only when the trial commences but also when the person is first produced before a magistrate and remanded.

Suk Das vs Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (AIR 1986 SC 991)

The Supreme Court held that failure to inform the accused of their right to meet an advocate would vitiate the trial, leading to setting aside the conviction and sentence.

The right of an accused person to consult a lawyer begins from the moment of arrest. Consultation with the lawyer may be within the presence of a police officer.

The SC also held that it is the duty on all courts and magistrates to inform the indigent person about his right to get free legal aid.

Right to be Produced Before Magistrate within 24 Hours of Arrest

Irrespective of whether the arrest was with or without a warrant, the arrested person must be brought before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay.

Section 56 CrPC (Sec 57 BNSS) states that a police officer making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay.

Section 57 CrPC (Sec 58 BNSS) states that whether the arrest is without a warrant or under a warrant, the arrested person must be brought before the magistrate or court within 24 hours. No police officer shall detain a person for more than 24 hours without an order from the Magistrate.

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution states that every person arrested and detained shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey. No such person shall be detained beyond this period without the authority of a magistrate.

This right aims to:

• Prevent arrest and detention for extracting confessions or compelling information.

• Prevent police stations from being used as prisons.

• Afford early recourse to a judicial officer independent of the police on bail or discharge.

Poovan vs. Sub-Inspector of Police (1993 CrLJ 2183 Ker)

The Court held that whenever a magistrate receives a complaint that a person has been arrested but not produced within 24 hours or is being detained beyond 24 hours, the magistrate can call upon the police officer to state whether the allegations are true and under whose custody. If the officer denies the arrest, the magistrate can inquire into the issue and pass appropriate orders.

Right of Arrested Person Not to Be Subjected to Unnecessary Restraint

Section 49 states that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent their escape.

Right to Health and Safety

Section 55A of CrPC (Sec 56 BNSS) states that the person having custody of an accused must take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.

Right to Know the Grounds of Arrest and Right to Bail in Bailable Offence

Section 50 states that every police officer arresting a person without a warrant shall communicate full particulars of the offense or other grounds for arrest.

In bailable offenses, the police officer shall inform the arrested person that they are entitled to be released on bail and may arrange for sureties.

Right to Speedy Trial

Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360)

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court for the release of under-trial prisoners in Bihar, some imprisoned longer than the maximum punishment period.

The Court stated that the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide a speedy trial by pleading financial or administrative inability.

The State must ensure a speedy trial, and this Court, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must enforce the right to a speedy trial.

The Court held that keeping a large number of people behind bars without trial for so long could not be regarded as reasonable, just, or fair under Article 21.

Right to be Examined by Medical Practitioner

Section 54 of CrPC (Sec 53 BNSS) provides that when a person is arrested, they shall be examined by a medical officer in the service of the Central or State Government, or a registered medical practitioner, soon after the arrest.

The medical officer examining the arrested person shall prepare a record of such examination, mentioning any injuries or marks of violence and the approximate time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted.

A copy of the medical examination shall be furnished to the arrested person or the person nominated by them.