One of the most enduring myths concerning the criminal law of India has been that of the accused. Silence is an indicator of guilt. This misconception is often perpetuated in movies and other forms of media. Engendering a perception that a mere innocently acting person would necessarily voluntarily speak out to exculpate themselves. Nevertheless, the Indian constitutional law adopts a completely different and more cautious approach. Silence, instead of being “presumed” to fill gaps in the law, would actually act. The right to assembly, as described in “suspicious,” is a basic human right granted by the Constitution.
A Historical Background of the Right to Silence
This right to remain silent is directly drawn from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which states that no person charged with an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This provision “embodies the guarantee against self-incrimination. It provides that ‘the State, with all its organs, officials and agencies, and instrumental investigative apparatus, cannot compel an individual to contribute to their prosecution. This right is more than merely procedural. It is substantive. It is absolute. It is applicable while the person is in the custody of the police, during investigation, interrogation, as well as throughout the trial. A suspect can decide not to respond to questions, which might lead to criminal charges against them, and such a refusal does not constitute evidence of guilt.
Silence and The Burden of Proof
In the absence of the Indian criminal jurisprudence is based on the presumption of innocence. Every accused is presumed to be innocent. In the case of the State, it is to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proof rests completely on the is a responsibility of the prosecution. There is no obligation imposed on the accused to provide any reason for those actions, assist, or compensate the prosecution in proving its case.
The courts have consistently held that nothing can fill the gaps in the prosecution’s case except a confession made by the accused. A conviction cannot be secured through the accused’s silence based on what the accused did not say; it must rely on credible and admissible evidence presented by the State.
Judicial Construction and Guarantees
In fact, the Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the right of self-incrimination. In particular, it has ruled that it would constitute a violation of Article 20(3) and the general right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. Forcible methods of interrogation, including psychological pressure, threats, or incentives, all forms of coercion, direct or indirect,
An accused person is entitled to legal counsel during the police interrogation, in which he/she can choose to exercise the privilege to remain silent. Notably, a confession to the police is not normally admissible as evidence, in addition to emphasising “the lack of trust in compelled testimonies.” The Importance of Silence in a Fair and Just Legal System in a fair and just judicial system.
Right to Silence
The rule of silence is an essential element in ensuring that there is justice in the criminal justice system. It shields citizens from possible abuse or unjust treatment. There are convictions, custodial abuse, and forced confessions. It also sustains the balance of power at both. State and the individual to ensure that the investigative onus should remain where it properly belongs, namely on the prosecution.
Silence, therefore, cannot be regarded as evasive or misleading. Silence is a legal and permissible expression of a constitutional right, intended to secure dignity, autonomy, and justice in criminal cases.
