Read Time: 04 minutes
The top court said that it cannot be argued that an accused is not cooperating solely on the basis that he has not confessed to all the charges levelled against him in the FIR
An accused has a right to silence guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and investigation agencies cannot force him or her to speak up or admit guilt, observed the Supreme Court. It further said that “cooperation” with an investigation cannot be equated to “confession”.
The above observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta while hearing an appeal challenging non-grant of an anticipatory bail by the high court to the husband in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry and other charges.
Earlier, a vacation bench of the apex court on May 23 had granted anticipatory bail to the husband and directed that he “shall cooperate with the investigation.”
When the case was listed for hearing on Thursday post-vacation, the advocate representing the wife objected to continuing relief to the husband on the ground of his non-cooperation with the investigation.
“Cooperation cannot mean confession. Why cannot he (accused- husband) choose to remain silent? When the Constitution gives every person a right to remain silent, how can this be raised against as an argument of non-cooperation?” asked the court to wife’s lawyer.
The top court said that it cannot be argued that an accused is not cooperating solely on the basis that he has not confessed to all the charges leveled against him in the FIR. It said that such a view is not in consonance with the principle of constitutional and criminal jurisprudence.
Notably, the right to remain silent forms a part of right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The courts in certain cases can draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused. However, it does not take away the prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubts as an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise.
The apex court said that it cannot deprive a person of his liberty merely because he has not confessed alleged crimes and extended the interim protection to husband till further orders.
The court posted the matter for hearing on September 14.
Cause Title: ABHISHEK DIXIT vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Please Login or Register
