1964 (12) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

whether s. 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to an accused person? Held that - S. 94, on its true construction, does not apply to an accused person. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. It is not necessary to give facts in the other appeals because nothing turns on them.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to an accused person.
2. Interpretation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the context of compelling an accused to produce documents.
3. Legislative intent and historical context regarding self-incrimination protections.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to an Accused Person:
The primary issue was whether Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a court or police officer to summon a person to produce a document, applies to an accused person. The Supreme Court held that Section 94 does not apply to an accused person. The Court reasoned that the language of Section 94 is general, but the legislative intent and historical context indicate that it was not meant to include accused persons. The Court emphasized that compelling an accused to produce documents could lead to self-incrimination, which is protected against under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court noted that if the legislature had intended Section 94 to apply to accused persons, it would have explicitly stated so.

2. Interpretation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
Article 20(3) of the Constitution states that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court referenced its earlier decision in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, which held that an accused cannot be compelled to produce documents that are incriminatory and based on his personal knowledge. The Court highlighted that if Section 94 were construed to include accused persons, it would conflict with Article 20(3), leading to potential prosecutions under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code for non-compliance. The Court concluded that such an interpretation would lead to grave hardship for the accused and make investigations unfair.

3. Legislative Intent and Historical Context:
The Court examined the historical context and legislative intent behind Section 94 and Article 20(3). It noted that the principle against self-incrimination is deeply rooted in British and American jurisprudence, developed as a reaction against inquisitorial methods and barbarous sentences. The Court observed that the Indian legislature was aware of this principle and incorporated it into various sections of the CrPC, such as Sections 175, 343, and 342A, which provide protections against self-incrimination. The Court also discussed the broader statutory framework, including the Indian Evidence Act and other laws, which reflect a consistent legislative intent to protect individuals from self-incrimination.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Shah dissented, arguing that the words of Section 94 are general and do not exclude accused persons from its operation. He contended that the scheme of the CrPC supports the interpretation that Section 94 applies to all persons, including accused individuals. Justice Shah also noted that the protection against self-incrimination as understood in the United Kingdom and the United States has not been fully adopted in India. He pointed out that various Indian statutes compel individuals, including accused persons, to furnish information or evidence, indicating that the rule against self-incrimination is not absolute in India. Justice Shah concluded that the appeals should be allowed, and the reference made by the Sessions Judge should be accepted.

Conclusion:
The majority judgment held that Section 94 of the CrPC does not apply to accused persons, aligning with the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Court emphasized the legislative intent and historical context to support its interpretation. The dissenting opinion, however, argued for a broader application of Section 94, consistent with the general language of the statute and the overall scheme of the CrPC.

← Previous Next →