HINDI VIDYA PRACHAR SAMITI

(HVPS) LAW COLLEGE

RINA RAM

TYLLB SEM V

DIV.: B

ROLL NO. : 01

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973

 CASE STUDY:
NANDINI SATPATHY V.
P.L DANI & OTHERS
INDEX

SR.NO PARTICULAR PG.NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 FACT 4

3 ISSUES 5
4 PROVISIONS 4

5 JUDGEMENT 5

6 CONCLUSION 6
 INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India in Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani case gave an interpretation regarding the right of an accused person to be silent while police
interrogation in relation to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and Section 161(1) of the CrPC. Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides fundamental
rights to its citizen to be protected against any criminal offences that stand against him that is Article 20(1) of the Constitution is also known as Ex Post-facto which
means that a person who is charged for an offence can not be charged against any other act which is not in violation of any existent act and also it says that a person
will only be charged for the penalty which is enforced at the time of the offence took place.

For instance, A committed a crime in 1950 and was booked under IPC but while A’s trial was in process in 1951 an amendment was introduced regarding increasing
the punishment for the violator, however, A will be protected under Article 20(1) and he not will be punished under the amended provisions of the law. Article 20(2)
of the Constitution is known as double jeopardy which means that no one can be punished twice for the same crime. Article 20(3) of the Constitution is also known
as self-incrimination which means that this particular article gives a right to an accused person to not stand a witness against himself i.e., a person who is booked in
the violation of any act or provision of the law has right to not give statements as a witness and such person can also claim for it. Also, it is based on legal
maxim Nemo tenetur prodere accussare seipsum which states that no man is bound to accuse himself

Article 20(3) of the constitution is dealt with section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which says that while examining any person regarding the charges he is
booked for he has to answer every question of the investigating officer truthfully in Nandini Sathpathy vs. P.L. Dani case by the Supreme Court of India. However,
this article will give an insight into the right to remain silent of the accused in reference to the case law. 

Case: Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani

Citation: 1978 AIR 1025, 1978 SCR (3) 608

Petitioner: Nandini Satpathy

Respondent: Dani (P. L.) and ANR.

Date of Judgment: 07/04/1978

Bench: J. Jaswant Singh, V. D. Tulzapurkar and Krishna Iyer

 FACTS
• The former CM of Orissa was booked under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section

161, 165, 120B and 109 of the IPC by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack. The appellant along with other persons who were involved in the

disproportionate asset case was interrogated on the basis of a written series of questions. Disproportionate asset means when a person owns assets that exceed their

total legal annual income. The charges are that she during her tenure as the Chief Minister has misused her political power and has gained illegal gratification which

has increased her wealth.

• However, as her interrogation was on the process she imposed her fundamental right under Article 20(3) that is right against self- incrimination can also be referred to

as the right to be silent against which a person is booked. Again, because of this act, she was booked before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack

under Section 179 of IPC on the complaint of DSP, Vigilance, Cuttack and a summons was passed against her.

• On this, the accused challenged the rationality of the power of the judicial magistrate by moving to the High Court under  Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

and Section 141 of the CrPC. But the High Court failed to answer the limit of section 161(2) of CrPC when an accused imposes Article 20(3) during police

interrogation because of which the plea of the appellant was rejected. And on receiving a certificate she appealed under  Article 132(1) in the Supreme Court. 
 ISSUES
• The following are the issues that arose from this case:

1. Do a suspected accused have a right to sanction their right to be silent who has committed a criminal offence? 

2. What are the probable criteria for an accused to impose Article 20(3) while the investigation of the police is in the process? Can the accuse also has an option to ignore questions
which can expose his act?

3. When does the shield of remaining silence come into action? Is it only available to an accused in the court or does it protect them from incriminating themself from the investigation
of the police?

4. How does Article 20(3) cover the limit of the cryptic expression when someone is forced to present against itself? 

5. When a person presents himself as a witness does it lead to a testimony where a person can make themself guilty for wrongdoing or from a series of answers obtained will it lead to
proving or demonstrating guilt?

6. What are the boundaries of section 161 of CrPC? Do answers which are of inculpatory characteristics that have a probable chance of exposing a person while an investigation or is
in the trail are allowed?

7. Who is referred to in section 161 of CrPc when ‘any person’ is inferred? Is it only related to a witness or does it also include accuse?

8. At what stage does an answer result in self-incrimination or holds the propensity to expose? How will a distinction be set between a nocent-innocent, acceptable and barred
interrogation?

9. Do section 179 of the IPC have mens rea as its essential ingredient and if it is then what are its characteristics? Can an accuse will be salvaged when any answer includes the
capability of exposing their guilt?   

10. When does section 161 of the CrPC and section 179 of the IPC sets the boundary for benefit of doubt? 
 PROVISIONS
• Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution which deals with ‘prohibition against self-incrimination’ and states that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witness

against himself”.

• Section 179 of Indian Penal Code which deals with ‘refusing to answer public servant authorized to question’ and states that “Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any

subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant,

shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”.

• Section 161 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code which deals with ‘examination of witnesses by police’ and states that “Any police officer making an investigation under this chapter, or

any police officer not below such rank as the state government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any

person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”.

• Section 161(2) of criminal procedure which states that “Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions

the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture”.
 JUDGEMENT
• The court held that for invoking Article 20(3) the party pleading must be accused of an offence, and that he/she was subjected to a compulsion to answer the
incriminating questions asked from them, and that calling a woman as a witness in the police station violates section 160(1) and influences her testimony and that
section 161(2) and Article 20(3) immune the witness from being forces to answer incriminatory questions at the investigation stage.
• The Court moved forward to the question of the constitutional validity of Article 20(3) i.e. when does an accused is protected from answering questions that can
cause self-incrimination? To this, the court concluded that a person has his fundamental rights intact even if he is not in the court for claiming their right to be silent. 
• However, for explaining its ambit the court took the reference of M.P. Sharma’s case and said that the umbrella of Article 20 (3) applies not only in the Courtroom
where an accused is compelled to self-incriminate himself for testimony but is also protected when he is forced to self-incriminatory statements at the time of police
investigation. Hence it extends to suspected accused against whom FIR is being lodged and all investigative processes which can support the charges of the
prosecution. 
• Also, while explaining the ambit of Article 20(3) the court took cognizance of the cruel and brutal methodology that police take against an accused so that he accepts
his wrongdoing. So, the framers of the constitution considered the mental and physical torture an accused person has to face while police interrogate because of
which the ambit of Article 20 (3) is applied from the initial stage of any criminal trial i.e. when the police start their interrogation with the accused.
• The court further gave a distinction between an incriminatory statement and a compelled testimony and mentioned that it is not necessary that all relevant answers
are criminatory and statements that appear to be criminatory cannot be said to be a confession. The likelihood of exposing someone’s criminal charges are much
broader than the charges against which he is summoned. So, for settling the issue the court has to take into consideration various factors and when an accused is
answering the questions it should be innocent in its characters but the result of every answer he is giving should prove him guilty. The accused is expected to answer
those questions which do not criminate himself. 
• Section 179 of IPC includes mens rea when an accused person does not intentionally turn down the claims but unknowingly neglects the charges. Also, the benefit of
the doubt is awarded when the accused with his explanation points out acceptable grounds for doubt and he cannot be forced to do otherwise unless he is restricted to
claim for his privileges. 
• Hence, Article 20(3) with section 161(2) of CrPC has a broad concept and it protects the right to be silent. Therefore, the court accepted the appeal of the appellant.
 CONCLUSION
According to the court, self-incrimination is less than “relevant” and more than ‘confessional. Irrelevance is impermissible relevant is licit, but when relevant questions
merely because the answer thereto are not implicative when viewed in isolation and confined to that particular case. He is entitled to keep his mouth shut if the answer
has a reasonable prospect of exposing him to guilt in some other accusation, actual or imminent, even if the investigation is not with reference to that. However, he is
bound to answer where there is no clear tendency to criminate. This means that protection is available when police examine the accused during an investigation under
section 161 of the criminal procedure code. Further, the right to silence is not limited to the case for which he is examined but extends to the accused in regard to other
offences pending or imminent which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of criminal matter.
• This case came as a light to those who are being forced to answer the police in-charge while he is interrogating them. The appellant of the case was an educated
citizen she knew her fundamental rights and because of which she moved to the higher Courts for knowing the extent of imposing a person to speak truthfully against
herself. In India, when an FIR is lodged against a person, the police, who is known as the protector of public’s interest, forces the accused person to speak truthfully
and for gaining truth they end up compelling the suspect to accept the charges against themself but the most affected lot in our country is the uneducated person who
is not aware that they have a right to be silent while in police custody or in the courts trial. 
• The main role, in cases where a person is held in jail because of his crime, is of a judge and he has to understand the basic methodology of a police interrogation that
includes mental and physical torture when a person is not aware for imposing his right under Article 20(3) because there is a possible chance of poor legal assistance
to the vulnerable section of our society. However, this case opened doors for fair interrogation by the police. Because the main issue which arose from this particular
case was the operation of Article 20(3) with section 161(2) of CrPC and it cleared the confusion for imposing it even at the initial stage of the investigation.

THANK YOU..!