Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

 Article 20 of Indian Constitution

Article 20 : Protection in respect of conviction for offences 

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides the following safeguards to the persons accused of crimes -

• ex post facto law : Article 20 (1)
• Double jeopardy : Article 20 (2)
• Prohibition against self incrimination : Article 20(3)

Protection against ex post facto law -

Article 20 (1): 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.

An ex post facto law is a law which imposes penalties retrospectively i.e. on acts already done and increases the penalty for such acts.

Note : The American Constitution also contains a similar provision prohibiting ex post facto laws both by Central and State legislature.

Punishment can neither be given nor increased in retrospective sense.

The right guaranteed by Article 22 of Constitution is available to persons i.e. citizens as well as non citizens.

Case : Kedarnath vs State of West Bengal,1953 SC

The accused committed an offence in  1947, which under the Act then enforce was punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. The Act was amendment in 1949 which enhanced the punishment for the same offence by an additional fine equivalent to amount of money procured by accused through the offence. 

Held : The SC held that the enhanced punishment could not be applicable to the act committed by the accused in 1947 and set aside the additional fine imposed bt amended Act.

Beneficial provision -

An ex post facto law which is beneficial to the accused is not prohibited by clause (1) of Article 20 .

Case : T. Barcal vs Henry AN Hoe ,1981 

Held - It was held that accused could take advantage of the beneficial provision of the Central Amendment Act and thus he had the benefit of the reduced punishment. 

Case: Ratanlal vs State of Punjab, 1965 SC

A boy of 16 years of age was convicted for committing an offence of house trespass and outraging the modesty of a girl aged 7 years.

        The Magistrate sentenced him for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine .

        After the judgement of Magistrate, the Prohibition of Offenders Act 1956 , came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years of age should not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment .

Held -The SC held that the rule of beneficial interpretation required that ex post facto law could be appealed to reduce the punishment.

Protection against Double Jeopardy :

Article 20(2): No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

This clause embodies the common law rule of nemo debet vis vexari which means that no man should be put twice in peril for the same offence. If he is prosecuted again for the same offence for which he has already been prosecuted, he can take complete defense of his former acquittal or conviction.

In India - Reprosecution is allowed but                        repunishment is not allowed.

In USA- Reprosecution and repunishment                   both are prohibited.

Article 20 (2) and Section 300(1) of Cr.PC

Both are related to each other. Section 300 (1) of CrPC is wider than Article 20 (2).

Prohibition against self incrimination

Article 20(3): No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This clause is based on the principle of "nemo tenetur seipsum accusare" which means roughly "no man has to accused himself".

Case: MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra 1954,SC

Held - SC observed that the right under Article 20 (3) encompasses the following-

1. It is a right pertaining to a person who is "accused of an offence".
2. It is protection against "compulsion to be a witness".
3. It is protection against such compulsion relating to his given evidence "against himself".

Case : State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu, 1961

Held - The court held that interpretation of the phrase 'to be a witness' in MP Sharma case was too broad because it was including 'not furnishing any evidence' , which means no fingerprints, no handwriting specimen, no DNA or any other such evidence could be collected from the accused , so the ambit of 'to be a witness' was narrowed which now means that giving fingerprints, handwriting specimen etc. will not be included in the ambit of Article 20 (3).

            So , now scope of Article 20 (3) is that you can not compel a person to say something from his personal knowledge relating to the charge against himself.

Case : Selvi vs State of Karnataka ,2010

Held - Narco analysis, polygraphy and brain fingerprinting fests done on accused without their consent were held violative of Article 20 (3) because it was against the "preservation of individual liberty".

Case: Nandini Satpathy vs PL Dahi , 1977 SC 

Held - The SC held prohibitive scope of Article 20 (3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation under Section 16 (2) of CrPC , not commencing in court only .

   

                              -Deepak kumar 

                              -Anjali singh 

                  ( University of Allahabad)