KEY TAKEAWAYS –

• To know about the rights of the accused person in case of a trial.
• To understand the need for protection of the rights of an accused person.
• To learn about the Landmark legal precedents in case of rights of an individual during investigation.

INTRODUCTION –

Investigation is an important part of the criminal justice system, where evidence is gathered to establish the truth and determine guilt. However, this provision must be considered within the limits of the law, to ensure that individual rights are protected. Over the years, the world legal system has evolved to recognize and protect these rights, often through landmark cases and legislative reforms.

Everyone, whether accused or convicted, has the right to fundamental human rights. According to the insights provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, human rights are among the fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed by all human beings worldwide from birth to the end of life.

A person accused of committing a crime is facing charges or trial but has been formally convicted. In India, a society following democratic principles is a constitutional requirement to ensure a fair trial. Presumption of innocence prevails in Indian courts unless guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The rights of an accused can be defined in the categories of pre-trial, post-trial, and post-trial. These rights include due process of law, access to bail, the ability to hire criminal defense counsel, and access to independent counsel.

Essentially, the rights of an accused are the same as those of any Indian citizen, including the right to equality and protection before the law under the Constitution of India itself, and other rights are enumerated in the Criminal Code and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

OVERVIEW OF THE ACT –

In India, the protection of rights during investigation is enshrined in constitutional provisions and statutory rules. The concept of protecting the rights of accused persons and persons involved in investigations has emerged through various judicial cases, legislative amendments and legislative interpretations.

The Indian Constitution provides a robust framework for protecting the rights of individuals, including those accused of crimes. Article 20(3) and 21 are particularly relevant in the context of investigations. Article 20(3) guarantees the right to be a witness against himself. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted expansively by the courts to include various procedural safeguards during investigations.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has given interpretation of 25 specific rights in different categories of Article 21. The Constitution provides for liability for violation of Article 21, protection against chains of unjust and undesirable, protection against violence in juvenile detention, of fair and speedy trial, free legal aid, or of decline Against and Defence, these rights have been clarified and protected by the application of Article 21 by the Supreme Court.

NEED FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS –

Given the power dynamics between the constitutional ad private sectors, it is important to protect rights while conducting research in the Indian legal system, this requirement stems from the risks of abuse of power, coercion, and wrongful conviction that individuals face during the investigation process. Hence, without adequate safeguards, there is a real danger of miscarriage of justice, thus condemning and undermining the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in the Constitution of India.

• Risk of abuse and coercion –

Law enforcement agencies in India exercise necessary powers and resources while conducting investigations. This power imbalance often puts individuals, especially suspects or the accused, in a vulnerable position. Police often have the power to arrest, detain and interrogate individuals without immediate supervision, raising concerns about the potential for these powers to be abused.

The primary risk individual’s face during investigations is coercive practices and intimidation by the law enforcement bodies, the pressure to confess or provide evidence of incriminating charges can force individuals to make false statements or to engage in crimes they have not committed. This can be particularly evident in cases where individuals are unaware of their rights or do not have the knowledge about their rights and lack the means to afford a legal counsel on their behalf.

These inadequate protections during the investigation phase can also increase the risk of wrongful conviction, without safeguards such as the right to legal counsel, the right to remain silent, and protection against arbitrary searches and seizures, individuals may be unfairly targeted or subjected to biased investigation practices, this was observed in the case of Nandini Satapathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978, In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of individuals to self-determination. The court held that the right to remain silent during police interrogation is enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. This decision emphasized the need to protect individuals from coerced confessions and ensured that statements made under duress would not be admitted into evidence.

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS –

In the Indian legal system, individuals, whether accused or witnesses of a crime, have rights aimed at justice, fairness and protection of their liberty These rights are enshrined in the Constitution of India, laws traffic law and judicial reporting.

The fundamental principle of innocence until proven guilty is central to the legal system, ensuring that no one is found guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, as outlined in our Constitution of Article 20 (1). Accused are usually granted rights only when warrants are issued. Besides, the rights mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 are further protected by our Supreme Court.

• Right To Remain Silence –

The right to remain silent applies primarily to confessions. According to the rules of evidence, any statements or confessions made to law enforcement are generally inadmissible in court, Importantly, the right to remain silent may be waived by the accused, but this waiver must be voluntary and free from coercion or pressure.

Constitutional provisions further strengthen the right to remain silent. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India clearly guarantees the right of every individual against self-incrimination. This provision ensures that persons accused of any crime cannot be compelled to testify against them. This constitutional protection was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Nandini Satapathy v.  P.L. Dani, the court emphasized that the right of the accused to remain silent during interrogation or investigation cannot be violated, stressing that no one can extract a statement from them by force.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s stand on the issue was reaffirmed when it in 2010 announced drug screening, brain mapping and lie detector tests in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. This judgment confirmed the Court’s commitment to the sanctity of individuals after the rights are not compulsory or obligatory. In prohibiting these invasive tactics, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental importance of the right to remain silent to preserve the integrity of the legal process and protect individuals from power emphasizing the potential for abuse.

• Right To Know Charges and Reason For Arrest –

As per Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), any person arrested by a police officer without a warrant is entitled to be informed of the full particulars of the offense for which he is in custody appropriate and cannot withhold such information. The essence of section 50(1) emphasizes the importance of transparency and ensuring that individuals are aware of the reasons for their arrest, thereby protecting against arbitrary detention.

And Section 55 of Cr.P.C. Outlines the procedure to be followed when a person is arrested by a subordinate officer acting on the instructions of an officer. Before making an arrest, the officer under his command shall have the duty to notify the person being arrested within the terms of the written order issued by the officer, stating the offense or reason for the arrest. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest unlawful, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedures to ensure lawful arrests, in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004, The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the state to ensure a fair trial and protect witnesses, particularly in cases involving communal violence.

Where an arrest is made pursuant to a warrant, then as per Section 75 of the Criminal procedure code it states that the operator must notify the person to be arrested of the terms of the warrant and, if necessary, present the warrant itself. This process helps inform the individual of the legal basis for the arrest and ensures that he or she is aware of the rights of the detainee. Failure to disclose such information renders the arrest unlawful and underscores the importance of due process in law enforcement actions.

• He Should Have Appropriate Knowledge Regarding His Right to Be Released On Bail –

When a person is arrested/ or arrested for an offense punishable by imprisonment in India, the police officer must notify the right to be released on bail by paying the bail amount. This ensures fairness and access to justice for people who may not be aware of their right to bail, a requirement supported by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and consistent with constitutional principles of due process and personal liberty, as mentioned in Article 21 of the instant COI, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protection of personal liberty during arrest and detention.

• He Should Be Presented Before the Magistrate Without Any Delay –

Irrespective of whether the arrest was made with a warrant or not, the arresting person is bound to produce the arrested person immediately before the judiciary as mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Sections 56 and 76 Cr.P.C, explain this required arrangement. Section 56 establishes that in the case of bail proceedings involving a police officer arresting a person without a warrant, the arrestee shall be brought immediately before a magistrate or a police officer in charge of a police station, without unnecessary delay.

Similarly, Section 76 includes a provision that this delay in appearing before the tribunal does not exceed 24 hours in any event. However, travel time is not included when calculating this 24-hour period this provision is enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right under Article 22(2), with the aim of preventing the police from compelling a confession or extracting information from an arrested person for the duration of his detention in the jail.

Failure to comply with the 24-hour deadline to appear before a magistrate results in unjust police detention, this protection is necessary to protect individual rights and to ensure that the justice delivery mechanism works appropriately, failure to comply with this requirement not only violates statutory provisions but also undermines fundamental principles of justice and due process.

• Rights Of the Person at the Trial –

The right to due process guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality before the law. In addition to that, the Code of Criminal Procedure emphasizes the importance of open court proceedings to avoid secret convictions, while an open court hearing is ideal, cases of exceptional circumstances should be heard on camera, although this has occurred in the rarest of rare instances.

Although the right to a speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitutional provisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the landmark instance of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979, laid down the need for speedy investigation and prosecution, strict timelines are imposed, particularly where the maximum penalty does not exceed two years. The investigation must be discontinued within six months of the arrest unless the judge indicates in writing that it should be extended and states the reasons for such extension.

This provision of the timetable for investigation ensures that the individual is not held indefinitely and is not held in custody pending trial. It works to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure speedy and effective administration of justice.

“Moreover, it emphasizes the principle that delay of justice is a denial of justice.”

• Right to Consult a Lawyer/an Advocate –

The right of every arrestee to consult with counsel of his choice is protected as a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. This right is sacred and cannot be denied under any circumstances. Section 50(3) of the CrPC, further strengthens this by giving the appointed counsel the right to defend himself from the moment of arrest.

These policies ensure fairness, and access to justice and due process in accordance with law, in addition, individuals have the right to consult with their supporters before law enforcement and the courts to help them better manage/navigate their cases.

Furthermore, in the landmark instance of M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978, it established a right for the prisoners and accused to avail legal assistance free of cost and it a right enshrined under the Constitutional Provision of Article 21. Similarly, in another instance of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Hon’ble Court again reiterated the the Indian Court when it comes to affording representative rights to the prisoners in the criminal justice system.   

Thus, the right to afford an advocate for themselves is not a statutory provision with certain exceptions of their own but a right enshrined in the Constitutional provisions of India.

• Free Legal Aid to Accused –

The Supreme Court held that the State has a constitutional duty, arising expressly from Article 21, to provide free legal assistance to an indigent accused. This right is not only important during the trial, but extends to the initial appearance before a judge and subsequent detention. The Court emphasized that the failure of the State to inform the accused of this right would render the entire trial process invalid, consequently, it is the duty of all judges and courts to inform indigent accused of their right to free legal aid.

This was noted in the case of Suk Das & Anr v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1986, in this instance the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that even if the accused did not ask for the privilege to be represented by a lawyer, the constitutional privilege cannot be denied, and failure to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused unless expressly admitted would be rendered invalid, which will further require quashing of the conviction and sentence.

Thus, this important decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to providing access to justice for all regardless of their economic status.

• Inherent Right to be Examined by A Doctor for Assessment of Vitals –

Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) gives an arrested person the right to request for a medical examination if he or she believes that it will produce evidence of their innocence or implicate another person. This examination must be carried out by a registered medical practitioner upon request, unless the judge considers the request vexatious or likely to delay justice.

The importance of Section 54 has been highlighted in various judicial cases, which have clarified its interpretation and application, for instance in Prem Shankar Shukla v. State of Delhi Administration (1980), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of medical examination in cases of violence or torture in custody, emphasizing the need for medical evidence of his identity to corroborate allegations of wrongdoing.

This process ensures fairness in the legal process and is upheld by judicial decisions that emphasize its importance, especially in cases of violence or abuse in foster care.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS –

• D.K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR 1997 –

In this instance issued guideline to prevent atrocities committed and custodial deaths, The Supreme Court issued guidelines to curb police brutality and custodial deaths, these guidelines include ensuring accurate identification of arrests, completing a detailed arrest form, notifying a family member or friend of the arrest, documenting arrest injuries, and reporting all arrests to within 12 hours Failure to comply may result in contempt of court proceedings and departmental action against responsible officers.

These directives were intended to protect the rights of detained individuals and promote accountability in law enforcement agencies.

• BABU SINGH V. STATE OF U.P, AIR 1978 –

The apex court in this instance dealt with the issue of custodial violence and police brutality. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental human rights, even those accused of crimes. It held that violence in the custody of police violates the dignity and integrity of the person and constitutes a gross violation of constitutional rights.

The decision affirmed the state’s obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of detained persons and established strict guidelines to prevent such abuses in the future, further, the case forced an important court hearing to intervene to protect the rights of detainees and to prevent police excesses during interrogation and detention.

• SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION, AIR 1978 –

The Supreme Court dealt with prison violence and the rights of prisoners, in this instance, the petitioner had filed a petition in the court alleging that he had been subjected to cruelty and cruelty in the prison system.

The Court recognized the fundamental rights of prisoners, regardless of their sentence, and ruled that they have the right to due process and protection from violence, the judgment established the state’s obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of prisoners and provided guidelines to prevent the abuse of children in custody.

This landmark judgment reaffirmed the importance of protecting human dignity and fundamental rights even under imprisonment and set a precedent for the protection of prisoner’s rights in India.

CONCLUSION –

The justice system is designed to deliver justice to society, ensuring that persons accused of crimes are not punished until proven guilty in a court of law, the primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to ensure that the accused are brought to justice in a fair and expeditious manner, and following the vested rights of the Constitution. However, social realities often differ from conceptions of law and order.

In the Indian context, the rights of individuals are crucial for a fair and impartial legal system, enshrined in the Constitutional provisions and enforced by statutory provisions and judicial pronouncement, these rights are safeguards against abuse of power, coercion and infringement of liberty in investigative and legal proceedings.

The phrase “justice delayed and justice denied” highlights the injustice of lengthy legal systems, which offer little hope for redress for the accused in a society governed by the rule of law, courts plays a vital role in preventing atrocities and ensuring justice.