What is Self-Incrimination?

In legal terminology, a self-incrimination is an 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 of the danger thereof”. In simpler words, it is the act of implicating or
exposing one’s own self to criminal prosecution
Self-incrimination can be caused either through direct or indirect means. An example of
direct means includes interrogation or indirectly when information of a self-incrimination
nature is disclosed voluntarily without any external pressure.
As far as legal systems are concerned, accused criminals cannot be compelled to incriminate
themselves. However they can choose to speak to law enforcement authorities, but at the
same time, they cannot be punished for refusing to do so. It should be noted that while
most countries have jurisdictions regarding the right to remain silent and the right to legal
counsel, the laws are not uniform across the world. For example, the European Union has its
own set of laws regarding self-incrimination as per EU guidelines.
Right Against Self-Incrimination in India
In India, Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India states that the defendant has the right
against self-incrimination. Though witnesses are not offered the same protection.
The protection offered under Article 20 (3) is as follows:
Defendants must be informed of their rights before meaning any statements which can
incriminate him/her.
A defendant cannot be compelled to give any statements.
In the event that a defendant has been pressured into giving a statement that is self-
incriminating, it would not be accepted in a court of law.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) gives defendants the Right to Remain Silent. It
basically means that the defendant has the right to withhold information that can be self-
incriminating from the authorities.
In order to exercise their right to remain silent, the defendant must verbally and clearly state
that they are doing so. For example, a defendant can say, “I am exercising my right to remain
silent and will not be answering any further questions.”
Article 20 (3) does apply to those who made a willing confession without the use of coercion
and intimidation.1

1
The Supreme Court widened the scope of this immunity by interpreting the word ‘witness’
to include oral as well as documentary evidence so that no person can be compelled to be a
witness to support a prosecution against himself.2
This prohibition cannot be applied in cases where an object or document is searched or
seized from the possession of the accused. For the same reason, the clause does not bar the
medical examination of the accused or the obtaining of thumb-impression or specimen
signature from him/her.The doctrine of self-incrimination is a fundamental legal principle
that protects individuals from being forced to provide evidence or testimony that may
incriminate themselves. It is a crucial aspect of the Indian legal system, enshrined in the
Indian Constitution and various statutes, and forms the basis of the right to remain silent
and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In this article, we will delve into the
doctrine of self-incrimination and other provisions of Indian law that safeguard the rights of
individuals accused of crimes.
In India, provisions related to self-incrimination are primarily governed by the Indian
Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is a procedural law that sets
out the rules and procedures for criminal cases. The key provisions related to self-
incrimination in India are as follows:
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution: This constitutional provision protects an individual
from being compelled to be a witness against oneself. It states that "No person accused of
any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." This means that an accused
person has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to give evidence or provide
testimony that may incriminate them.
Section 161(2) of the CrPC: This section of the CrPC provides that a person is not bound to
answer any question that may incriminate them when being examined as a witness during
the investigation by a police officer. However, it also states that a police officer may draw an
adverse inference from the refusal of the person to answer such questions.
Section 313 of the CrPC: This section gives the accused the right to be examined by the court
after the witnesses have been examined, and the accused has the option to answer
questions that may be put to them. However, the accused is not bound to answer any
question that may incriminate them.
Section 20(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: This provision extends the
protection against self-incrimination to witnesses during inquiries conducted by the National
Human Rights Commission or State Human Rights Commissions.
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section provides that no confession made
to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense. This provision
is aimed at preventing confessions obtained through coercion or torture from being used
against an accused person in court.
It's important to note that while individuals have the right against self-incrimination in India,
there are certain exceptions and limitations to these provisions. For example, in certain
2
circumstances, a court may require an accused person to answer specific questions, or an
accused person may voluntarily choose to give a statement in their defence. It's
recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified professional for specific legal matters
related to self-incrimination in India
The doctrine of self-incrimination is primarily protected under Article 20(3) of the Indian
Constitution, which states, "No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself." This constitutional provision reflects the principle that no individual
can be compelled to be a witness against themselves, and they have the right to remain
silent during the course of any investigation or trial.
One of the key aspects of the doctrine of self-incrimination is that it applies not only to the
accused but also to witnesses who may be called upon to testify in a criminal case. Witness
has the right to refuse to answer any question that may incriminate them, and they cannot
be compelled to provide evidence that would implicate them in an offense.
The protection against self-incrimination is not limited to just verbal or oral testimony. It also
extends to other forms of evidence, such as documents, records, and physical objects, which
may incriminate an individual. The principle of self-incrimination prevents any form of
compulsion that would force an individual to produce evidence that may be used against
them in a criminal proceeding.
Another important provision that safeguards the right against self-incrimination is Section
161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows a person accused of an
offense to refuse to answer any question during police interrogation that may incriminate
themselves. This provision ensures that an accused has the right to remain silent and not be
compelled to provide evidence that may be used against them during the course of an
investigation.
Furthermore, the Evidence Act of 1872, which governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian
courts, also contains provisions that protect against self-incrimination. Section 24 of the
Evidence Act prohibits the use of any confession made to a police officer, while in custody, as
evidence against the accused in court. This provision ensures that any statement made by an
accused to the police during interrogation, which may incriminate themselves, cannot be
used against them in court.
In addition to the constitutional and statutory provisions, Indian courts have also recognized
the doctrine of self-incrimination as a fundamental right that is inherent in the concept of
fairness and justice. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized the importance
of the right against self-incrimination as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution
and has held that any violation of this right would render the trial unfair and
unconstitutional.
However, there are certain exceptions to the doctrine of self-incrimination in Indian law. For
example, an accused can be compelled to provide fingerprints, voice samples, or other
bodily substances for forensic testing, as these do not involve the accused providing
testimony against themselves. Additionally, an accused can be compelled to answer
questions related to their personal information, such as their name, age, and address, as
these do not incriminate them in any offense.
It is worth noting that the doctrine of self-incrimination is not absolute and may be subject
to limitations in certain circumstances. For instance, the principle of "substantive
voluntariness" allows a confession made by an accused to be admissible in court if it is given
voluntarily and without any coercion, threat, or inducement. However, the burden of
proving voluntariness lies on the prosecution.
Self-incrimination is a legal principle that protects individuals from being compelled to
provide evidence or testimony that may implicate them in criminal activity. In many
jurisdictions, including the United States, the right against self-incrimination is enshrined in
the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "No person ... shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This right extends to both
the testimonial and physical evidence that may incriminate an individual.
There have been several significant case laws related to self-incrimination, including:
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This landmark case in the United States Supreme Court
established the "Miranda warnings," which are the advisements that law
enforcement officers must provide to individuals in custody before questioning them,
including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Failure to provide
these warnings may result in any statements made by the defendant being
inadmissible in court.
2. Salinas v. Texas (2013): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a suspect's
silence during a non-custodial police interview can be used against them in court if
they have not explicitly invoked their right to remain silent.
3. Kastigar v. United States (1972): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a
defendant is granted immunity from prosecution, their testimonial evidence cannot
be used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. This case clarified the scope of
protection against self-incrimination in the context of immunity.
4. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004): In this case, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that states can require individuals to provide their name to law
enforcement officers during a Terry stop (brief investigative detention) without
violating the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
It's important to note that the application of the right against self-incrimination can be
complex and may vary in different legal contexts and jurisdictions. If you are facing a
situation where your right against self-incrimination may be implicated, it is crucial to seek
the guidance of a qualified legal professional who can provide you with specific legal advice
based on your circumstances.
The Supreme Court of India has interpreted this right in various cases and has established
certain conclusions regarding the self-incrimination doctrine in India:
 1. Protection against compulsion to be a witness against oneself: The doctrine of self-
incrimination in India provides protection to an accused person against being
compelled to give evidence that may incriminate them. This means that an accused
person cannot be forced to make a statement or give evidence that may be used
against them in a criminal prosecution.
2. Voluntary statements are admissible: If an accused person voluntarily chooses to
make a statement or give evidence, without any compulsion, such statements can be
used against them in court. However, the burden of proving that the statement was
truly voluntary lies on the prosecution.
3. Silence cannot be used against the accused: The doctrine of self-incrimination also
protects an accused person's right to remain silent. If an accused person chooses to
remain silent during interrogation or during the trial, their silence cannot be used
against them as evidence of guilt.
4. Exceptions to the doctrine: There are certain exceptions to the doctrine of self-
incrimination in India. For example, an accused person can be compelled to provide
fingerprints, voice samples, or other physical evidence. Also, in certain
circumstances, an accused person may be required to answer questions related to
their identity or other basic details.
5. Prohibition on torture or cruel treatment: The doctrine of self-incrimination also
prohibits the use of torture or cruel treatment to extract confessions from an
accused person. Any confession obtained through coercion, threat, or inducement is
not admissible in court.
In conclusion, the doctrine of self-incrimination in India is a fundamental right that protects
accused persons from being compelled to incriminate themselves. While voluntary
statements can be used against an accused person, silence cannot be used as evidence of
guilt. There are exceptions to the doctrine, but the use of torture or cruel treatment to
extract confessions is prohibited. It is essential to consult a qualified legal professional for
specific legal advice on matters related to self-incrimination in India.