Skip to content

Person is not ‘accused’ when he is giving statement

Person is not ‘accused’ when he is giving statement :

As per Article 20(3) of Constitution “No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. It was contended that in view of this, statement made before excise/customs authorities cannot be admitted as evidence. However, it was held that at the time of enquiry, the person is not ‘accused of an offence’ at that stage. Hence, his statements are not protected under Article 20(3) and it is admissible as evidence –  Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal – AIR 1970 SC 940 = 1969 (2) SCR 461 = 110 ELT 324 (SC 5 member Constitution bench) – affirmed in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, C Ex. 62 Taxman 447 = AIR 1992 SC 1795 = 60 ELT 24 (SC) = 75 Comp. Cas. 504 = (1992) 3 SCC 259 = 1992(3) SCR 247 = 1992 AIR SCW 2012 (3 member bench) * K L Pavunny v. ACCE (1997) 3 SCC 721 = 18 RLT 641 = 90 ELT 241 (SC 3 member bench) * Bhana Khalpa Bhai Patel v. ACC 96 ELT 211 (SC) = AIR 1998 SC 1487 * ACCE v. Duncan Agro 2000 AIR SCW 3150 = 2000(7) SCC 53 = AIR 2000 SC 2901 = 120 ELT 280 (SC) * Gulam Hussain Shaikh v. S Reynolds, Superintendent of Customs (2002) 1 SCC 155 = 134 ELT 3 = 2001  132 (SC) * UOI v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 231 ELT 397 (SC) * IVRCL Infrastructure v. CC (2015) 51 GST 335 = 57  409 (SC).

However, once FIR (First Information Report) is lodged, the person becomes a ‘person accused’ and hence the constitutional protection is available to a subsequent statement, even if the person is not specifically mentioned in FIR. However, in this case, the Court held that though an accused person is not required to be witness against himself, this does not mean that he need not give information regarding matters which do not tend to incriminate him. – . – Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah v. D K Guha – 1973 (1) SCC 696 = AIR 1973 SC 1196.

Really, the issue is not free from doubt. In Nandini Satpathy v. P L Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424, it was held that protection under Article 20(3) extends even at investigation stage – quoted with approval in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 (SC 3 member bench).