The Right Against Self-Incrimination

The right against self -incrimination is one of the basic tenets of the adversarial criminal justice system. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution and the accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against him. This constitutional protection may at many times obstruct the effective administration of criminal justice as criminals are a very hard nut to crack. Hardcore offenders are very often getting off scot-free due to lack of evidence of the commission of a crime.

In economic offenses, drug trafficking, terrorism, and like other high profile cases the perpetrator of the crime uses advanced technology where the conventional methods used by the state to investigate and detect crime seems to be insufficient. Over and above the plea of self-incrimination and the right to remain silent further restricts the power of investigation of the State.

The invention and use of modern scientific investigation techniques have facilitated the state to collect evidence in crimes. But legality and validity of these techniques have to be tested constitutionally. The right against self-incrimination is sacrosanct and various aspects of this right have been discussed in this book in detail along with the comparative study of selected other countries of the world.

The obvious fact is to reconcile two conflicting interests i.e. preservation of human privacy and the interest of the state to prevent crime. What is needed is the proper understanding of the techniques of brain-fingerprinting, narcoanalysis, polygraph, and DNA examination and how does this may help in identifying crime without violating the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

The present work throws light on evidential value, admissibility, and reliability of scientific evidence in relation to the right against self-incrimination under the Constitution of India.