Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement has held that calling an accused for admitting or denying the genuineness of the document would not amount to violation of his right against self-incrimination. 

What was the Background of the Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement Case? 

• In the present suit an issue was raised that whether it is violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India (COI) if a person is produced to admit or deny the genuineness of the document under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 
• A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court for the issue. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It is stated by the court that Article 20(3) of COI talks about the right against self-incrimination and no person should be a witness against himself.  
• The Supreme Court observed that the object of Section 294 of CrPC is to conduct the trial proceedings in a speedy manner by only using the evidence relevant for the trial and keeping aside the other irrelevant documents. 
  • The court added that non appearance of a person admitting or denying the genuineness of a document may lead to adverse decision against him. 
  • The Supreme Court held that to escalate the process of trial if an accused is asked to admit or deny the genuineness of the document would not amount to violation of Article 20(3) of COI. 

What is Section 330 of BNSS? 

• About: 
  • Section 330 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the documents whose formal proof is not required.  
  • It was covered under Section 294 of CrPC earlier.  
  • Two new proviso have been added under Section 330 of BNSS. 
• Section 330 
  • Clause (1) states that here any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused or the advocate for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document soon after supply of such documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply:  
    • Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, relax the time limit with reasons to be recorded in writing:  
    • Provided further that no expert shall be called to appear before the Court unless the report of such expert is disputed by any of the parties to the trial. 
  • Clause (2) states that the list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. 
  • Clause (3) states that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: 
  • It is provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. 

What is the Right Against Self Incrimination? 

About 

• It works on the legal maxim nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum – It states that a man cannot be compelled to state any self-incriminating statement. 
• Self-incrimination is a legal principle under which a person cannot be compelled to provide information or testify against themselves in a criminal case. In various jurisdictions, including the US and India, the right against self-incrimination is enshrined as a constitutional or legal protection. 

Article 20 of the COI  

• Protection in respect of conviction for offences 
  • Clause (1) states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. 
  • Clause (2) states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 
  • Clause (3) states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

What are Landmark Judgments on Self incrimination? 

• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978): in this case the importance of the right against self-incrimination was affirmed in this case. The Court held that the right extends to both accused persons and witnesses, emphasizing that no one can be forced to incriminate themselves under any circumstances. 
• Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019): In this case the Supreme Court has broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.  
  • It was also declared that a Magistrate can direct a person to compulsorily give voice samples during the investigation.