Protection in Respect of Conviction for the Offences:
Article-20 of the Indian Constitution provides the following safeguards to the persons accused of crimes:
Article-20 (1) Ex Post Facto Law
Article-20(2) Double Jeopardy
Article-20(3) Self Incrimination
Ex-Post Facto Law:
Article-20 (1):
No person shall be convicted of any offence except for the violation of law in force at the time of commission of an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that, which might at the time of the commission of an offence.
In Kedarnath
V
State of West Bengal
The accused convicted an offence in 1947, then on 1949 a law was amended which enacted the punishment for such offence.
The Supreme Court held that the enacted punishment will not be applicable to the act that was committed by the accused in 1947.
In Mohanlal
V
State of Rajasthan
The accused was convicted for the offence under section-18 of NDPS Act and the NDPS Act came into effect from 14/11/1985.
The offence by the accused was committed on 13/11/1985.
The Supreme Court held that, he was guilty because he was under the procession of the banned substance on that day.
Beneficial Provision:
In Ratanlal
V
State of Punjab
A boy of 16 years was convicted for committing an offence of house Trespass and outraging the modesty of a 7year old girl.
The magistrate court gave him 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine.
After the probation of Offenders Act 1958, which says that, No person below 21years of age can get Imprisonment.
The Supreme Court held that, Ex-Post Facto Law can be applied to reduce the punishment.
Double Jeopardy:
Article-20(2):
No person shall be prosecuted and punished more than once in the same offence.
It is based on “Nemo Debit Vis Vasari” which means that, no one should get twice the peril in the same offence.
Conditions:
Accused of the same offence
Prosecution should be brought in front of the court or before the tribunal
Prosecution and punishment should be given in the previous proceedings
The offence must be same.
In Maqbool Husain
V
State of Bombay
The appellant brought Gold in India; the customs authority confiscated the Gold under the Sea Customs Act.
He was later charged under the Foreign Exchange Act.
The appellant contended that the second prosecution was in the violation of Article-20(2) as it was caught in the same offence.
The Supreme Court held that, the Sea Custom Authorities is not a Judicial Tribunal and also did not constitute the Judgment of the Double Jeopardy.
Hence the prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Act is not barred.
In Venkataraman
V
Union of India
An appellant was dismissed from his service, as a result of enquiry under the Public Service Enquiry Act 1960.
Later the appellant was booked under IPC and under Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court held that, the enquiry is in the nature of the disciplinary action.
Therefore the second prosecution of the appellant will not attract the application of the Double Jeopardy under Article-20(2).
Self – Incrimination:
Article-20(3):
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
It is based on the maxim, “Nemo tenetur Precede Accusere Seipsum”
Which means that, No man is bound the accuse himself.
Conditions:
The person must be accused of an offence.
The protection is against the Compulsion to be as a witness.
The compulsion relates to by giving the evidence against him.
In MP Sharma
V
Satish Chandra
In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted the word “Witness” to include the oral, documentary and testimony evidence.
In this interpretation, it should be followed that, the finger impressions or handwriting of the accused would come under Article-20(3).
This broad interpretation would hamper the effective administration of a criminal justice.
In Kathikalu
V
State of Bombay
The Supreme Court held that the interpretation given it too broad and requires qualification.
Self- Incrimination means giving the information or personal knowledge of a person.
Thus when a person gives his finger Impression, it should not be included as witness.
In Nandini Satpathi
V
PL Dani
The compelled is not to a physical torture or coercion but extends to a psychological interrogation which causes mental torture to a person.
Nacroanlysis test etc violates the Article-20(3).
In Selvi
V
State of Karnataka
The accused challenged the validity of the scientific techniques like nacro analysis, poly-graphic and Brain finger printing test that without the consent of a person is a violation of Article-20(3).
The court laid down the following guidelines:
No lie detector test should be done without the consent of the accused.
The consent should be recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
The actual recording of the detector shall be done by an Independent Agency in the hospital in the presence of a lawyer.
Happy to publish more! Enjoy reading...
Comments
Post a Comment