Asking for fingerprints no breach of rights: SC
|
Dhananjay Mahapatra
|
|
New Delhi:
|
Settling a doubt which has
troubled crime investigators for long, the Supreme Court has ruled that
asking an accused to give finger or foot prints for investigation
purposes did not violate his fundamental right to protect himself from
becoming a witness against himself. The question before a bench of
Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman was “whether
compelling an accused to provide his fingerprints or footprints, etc,
would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India, that is compelling an accused of an offence to be a `witness'
against himself “?
This question arose in a case involving the murder of four persons of a family in Etawah in September 2000.The main accused died during the trial but his alleged as sociate, who had refused to give finger and foot prints to the investigating officer despite a direction from the trial court, was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death.
The high court acquitted him while holding, among other things, that the trial court could not have drawn an adverse inference because the accused refused to give a specimen of his palm impression in spite of the court order. The UP government and a relative of the murdered persons appealed against the acquittal in the SC.
The SC bench took note of the accused person's fundamental right under Article 20 (3), which provides, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.“ It also examined a 2010 judgment (Selvi vs Karnataka), in which the SC had said investigators could not force an accused to undergo narco-analysis or lie-detector tests as it involved extracting self-incriminating statements, which would violate protection under Article 20(3).
After examining the constitutional provision and other SC judgments, the bench said, “Any person can be directed to give his footprints for corroboration of evidence and the same cannot be considered a violation of protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.“
It overturned the HC ruling that if an accused refused to give fingerprints or footprints, despite court direction, no adverse inference could be drawn against him.
This question arose in a case involving the murder of four persons of a family in Etawah in September 2000.The main accused died during the trial but his alleged as sociate, who had refused to give finger and foot prints to the investigating officer despite a direction from the trial court, was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death.
The high court acquitted him while holding, among other things, that the trial court could not have drawn an adverse inference because the accused refused to give a specimen of his palm impression in spite of the court order. The UP government and a relative of the murdered persons appealed against the acquittal in the SC.
The SC bench took note of the accused person's fundamental right under Article 20 (3), which provides, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.“ It also examined a 2010 judgment (Selvi vs Karnataka), in which the SC had said investigators could not force an accused to undergo narco-analysis or lie-detector tests as it involved extracting self-incriminating statements, which would violate protection under Article 20(3).
After examining the constitutional provision and other SC judgments, the bench said, “Any person can be directed to give his footprints for corroboration of evidence and the same cannot be considered a violation of protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.“
It overturned the HC ruling that if an accused refused to give fingerprints or footprints, despite court direction, no adverse inference could be drawn against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment