Rights Of Accused In Indian Laws, An Analytical Study

MINOR PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF LAWS

Supervisor:- Submitted By:-

Dr. Anand Prakash Tiwari Harsh Singh

Assistant Professor Enrol. No:- LL/21/00034
Faculty of Law, Roll. No:- 2110225090068
DAV Degree College, Faculty of Law,
Lucknow -226004 DAV Degree College,
Lucknow -226004

Submitted to
Faculty of Law
DAV DEGREE COLLEGE
LUCKNOW, U.P., INDIA
2024
 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I Harsh Singh, certify that the work embodied in this Minor

Project entitled “Rights of Accused in Indian Laws, an
Analytical Study” is my own Bona fide and original work which is
carried out by me under the supervision of Dr. Anand Prakash
Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, DAV Degree
College, Lucknow. The content embodied in this Minor Project
has not been submitted for award of any degree/diploma from any
university or institution. The matter embodied the dissertation is
authentic and genuine work done by me.

Dated: Name:- Harsh Singh

Subject:- LL.B VI Semester
Roll. No:- 2110225090068
Enrol. No:- LL/21/00034
Faculty of Law,
DAV Degree College,
Lucknow -226004
 CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISIOR

This is to certify that Harsh Singh, has enrolled under my

supervision for writing Minor Project, entitled “Rights of Accused
in Indian Laws, an Analytical Study” leading to award of the
degree of Bachelor of Laws, D.A.V. Degree College, Lucknow,
associated with University of Lucknow. He has prepared this
Minor Project on his own and has undertaken that this is his
original work.

He has completed all the formalities as required under the

ordinance and the Minor Project is submitted for evaluation by
expert in the field.

Dated: Dr. Anand Prakash Tiwari

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Law
DAV Degree College
Lucknow.
 FORWARDING CERTIFICATE

WHEREAS,

Under University of Lucknow, Lucknow LL.B 3yrs Degree

Course Ordinance 2021-22, a candidate is required to write a
Dissertation or Minor Project shall be allotted by a Committee
constituted by dean in the fulfillment of the requirement for
the Degree of Bachelor of Laws in the University of Lucknow.

AND WHEREAS,

Harsh Singh has been permitted to write a Minor Project on

the topic: “Rights of Accused in Indian Laws, an Analytical
Study”

For the award of Degree of Bachelor of Laws by the University

of Lucknow, Lucknow.

NOW THEREUPON

Harsh Singh has submitted the said Minor Project which is

being forwarded to the Registrar, University of Lucknow,
Lucknow for necessary action.

Dated: Prof. (Dr.) Sanjay Tiwari

Principal I/C
Faculty of Law,
DAV Degree College,
Lucknow -226004
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have

supported and encouraged me throughout the completion of this
project.

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Anand Prakash Tiwari

(Supervisor), for their invaluable guidance, feedback, and
support. Their expertise and insights were instrumental in
shaping the direction and successful outcome of this work.

I am also grateful to my professors and Law faculty members at

DAV Degree College Lucknow, for providing the knowledge and
resources necessary for the completion of this project. Their
dedication to legal education and research has been a great
source of inspiration.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and

friends for their constant encouragement and understanding
during this time. Their patience and support have been essential
in keeping me motivated and focused.

This project has been a challenging yet rewarding endeavour, and

I am thankful for the opportunity to develop and showcase my
legal skills.

Thank you,
Harsh Singh
 ABBREVATIONS

SC:- Supreme Court

CrPC:- Code of Criminal Procedure

IEA:- Indian Evidence Act

AIR:- All India Reporter

SCR:- Supreme Court Reports

RTI:- Right To Information

CRLJ:- Criminal Law Journal

IPC:- Indian Penal Code

UDHR:- Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ICCPR:- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

 LIST OF CASES

D.K. Basu VS. State Of West Bengal

Babu Singh VS. State Of UP

Rattiram VS. State Of MP

Hussainara Khatoon VS. State Of Bihar

Kadra Pahadiya VS. State Of Bihar

Kolla Veeta Raghav Rao VS. Gorantla Venketeshwar Rao

Calder VS. Bull Case Of 1798

of Kedarnath VS. State Of West Bengal

Ratan Lal VS. State Of Punjab

Maqbool Husain VS. State Of Bombay

Venkataraman VS. Union Of India

State Of Bombay VS. Kathi Kalu Oghad

State Of Punjab VS. Ajaib Singh

Nandini Satpathi VS. P.L.Dani

Selvi VS. State of Karnataka

Joginder Kumar VS. State of UP

Sheela Barse VS. State of Maharashtra

Julfikar Ali VS. State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi

Dr. Rini Johar VS. State of MP

State of MP VS. Ramesh

Youth Bar Association VS. Union of India

Kehar Singh VS. Delhi Administration

Rasiklal VS. Kishore Khanchand

Mohd. Sukur VS. State of Assam

Santa Singh VS. State of Punjab

Vohra Ibrahim VS. State of Maharashtra

Raj Kumar VS. State of Rajasthan

Mulkhtiar Singh VS. State of Punjab

Nandini Satpathy VS. Dani (P.L.)

Joginder Kumar VS. State of U.P.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01: Introduction

 0.1:- Objectives
 0.2:- Scope And Significance
 0.3:- Methodology
 0.4:- Structure Of The Project

CHAPTER 02: Rights Of Accused In Indian Laws

 0.1:- India Legal System

 0.2:- Who Is Accused?
 0.3:- What Is Right?
 0.4:- Indian Legislation And Right Of Accused
 0.5:- Right Under Criminal Procedure Code
 0.6:- Rights Under Evidence Act
 0.7:- Rights Of Accused Under IPC

CHAPTER 03: Critical Analysis

 0.1:- Introduction
 0.2:- Protection In Respect Of Conviction For Offences
 0.3:- Safe Guards Against Arbitrary Arrest & Detentions

CHAPTER 04: The Conclusion

 DISSERATION
ON

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN INDIAN

LAWS AN, ANALYTICAL STUDY
 CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION
 INTRODUCTION

Human rights are the cornerstone of modern legal

systems worldwide, embodying principles of justice,
equality, and the inherent dignity of individuals. These
rights are considered intrinsic and inalienable, grounded
in natural law rather than conferred by legislation. Over
the years, various international instruments such as the
United Nations Charter, the 1Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, and the 2International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of
1966 have played a pivotal role in establishing and
promoting human rights. Among these universal rights
are the rights of individuals accused of crimes, ensuring
their protection and fair treatment under the law.

In India, the rights of the accused are deeply embedded

within the legal framework, reflecting the nation's
commitment to upholding principles of natural justice
and human dignity. The Indian Constitution, as the
supreme law of the land, enshrines numerous
protections for individuals, including those accused of
criminal activities. These constitutional safeguards are
further reinforced by various statutory provisions and
judicial pronouncements, ensuring that the rights of the
accused are respected and upheld throughout the
judicial process.

This project aims to explore the rights of the accused

within the Indian legal system, providing a
comprehensive analysis of the constitutional, statutory,
and judicial safeguards in place. By examining these
protections, this project will highlight the importance of
ensuring fair treatment and justice for individuals

1Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948

2International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966
accused of crimes, reflecting India's commitment to
human rights and the rule of law.

0.1 OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this project are:

1. To examine the constitutional provisions

protecting the rights of the accused in India.
2. To analyse the statutory safeguards provided
under the Indian legal system.
3. To explore key judicial pronouncements
reinforcing the rights of the accused.
4. To understand the practical implications and
challenges in the enforcement of these rights.

0.2 SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE

The scope of this project encompasses a detailed study of

the rights of the accused as enshrined in the Indian
Constitution, particularly focusing on Articles 20, 21,
and 22. It will also cover relevant provisions under the
3Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and significant

judicial decisions that have shaped the interpretation

and enforcement of these rights.

The significance of this study lies in its potential to

contribute to a deeper understanding of the legal
protections available to accused individuals in India. By
shedding light on these safeguards, the project aims to
underscore the importance of a fair and just legal system
that respects and upholds the rights of all individuals,
including those facing criminal charges. This
understanding is crucial for legal practitioners,
policymakers, and scholars in promoting and protecting
human rights within the criminal justice system.

3Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

0.3 METHODOLOGY

The methodology adopted for this project involves a

thorough review of constitutional provisions, statutory
laws, and landmark judicial decisions. Primary sources
such as the Indian Constitution, the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and judicial rulings will be analyzed alongside
secondary sources including legal commentaries,
scholarly articles, and reports from human rights
organizations. This comprehensive approach will ensure
a well-rounded understanding of the rights of the
accused in the Indian legal context.

0.4 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT

This project is structured to provide a systematic

analysis of the rights of the accused in India. It begins
with an overview of the constitutional provisions,
followed by a detailed examination of statutory
safeguards under the CrPC. Subsequent sections will
focus on significant judicial pronouncements and their
impact on the rights of the accused. The project will
conclude with a discussion on the practical challenges in
the enforcement of these rights and potential
recommendations for improving the legal framework.

The rights of the accused are fundamental to the

integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system in
India. This project seeks to illuminate these protections
and their crucial role in upholding justice and human
dignity. By exploring the constitutional, statutory, and
judicial dimensions of these rights, the project aims to
contribute to a more just and equitable legal system that
respects and protects the rights of all individuals,
regardless of their accused status.
 CHAPTER 02
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN
INDIAN LAWS
 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN INDIAN LAWS

Human rights are those basic rights that are not created
by any legislation but have their origin in natural law.
Natural rights are based on the concepts of natural
justice, equality, and non-arbitrariness. International
Covenants such as the UN Charter, the 4Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, and the
5International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) of 1966 work towards the development of the

concept of human rights. These rights are available to all
people, whether innocent or accused. The protection and
promotion of human rights for individuals have not only
remained an objective of the international community
but have now become a concern for national states.

In India, the rights of the accused are enshrined in the

legal framework, reflecting the country's commitment to
uphold the principles of natural justice and human
dignity. The Indian Constitution, which is the
cornerstone of the country's legal system, provides
several protections for individuals, including those
accused of crimes. These constitutional safeguards are
supplemented by various statutory provisions and
judicial pronouncements, which collectively ensure that
the rights of the accused are respected and protected
throughout the legal process.

The Indian legal system recognizes that the accused,

despite being suspected of committing a crime, retain
their fundamental human rights. These rights are

4Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948

5International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966
essential for ensuring a fair trial and preventing any
miscarriage of justice. The rights of the accused in India
include the right to a fair trial, the right to legal
representation, the right to be informed of the charges,
the right to remain silent, and protection against self-
incrimination and unlawful detention.

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of the Indian

justice system, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution, which states that no person shall be
deprived of their life or personal liberty except according
to the procedure established by law. This right
encompasses several procedural safeguards designed to
ensure that the trial is conducted impartially and
without bias. The accused is entitled to a public hearing
before an impartial tribunal, and the principles of
natural justice must be adhered to throughout the
judicial process.

Legal representation is another critical right accorded to

the accused. Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution
guarantees the right to be defended by a legal
practitioner of one's choice. This right is further
reinforced by statutory provisions in the 6Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandate that if the
accused cannot afford legal representation, the state is
obligated to provide free legal aid to ensure that the
principles of justice are upheld.

The right to be informed of the charges against oneself is

crucial for preparing an adequate defense. Article 22(2) of
the Constitution ensures that the accused must be
6Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
informed of the grounds of arrest and detention. This
transparency is vital for safeguarding the accused's
ability to challenge the legality of their detention and to
prepare for their defense.

The right to remain silent and protection against self-

incrimination are essential components of a fair justice
system. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution states
that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself. This provision ensures
that the accused cannot be coerced into making self-
incriminating statements, thereby protecting their dignity
and autonomy.

Additionally, the Indian legal framework provides robust

protections against unlawful detention and torture. The
CrPC lays down clear procedures for arrest and
detention, requiring that any person arrested must be
produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. This
safeguard is crucial in preventing arbitrary detention and
abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.

Judicial pronouncements have also played a significant

role in reinforcing the rights of the accused in India. The
Supreme Court of India, through various landmark
judgements, has expanded the scope of these rights and
provided detailed guidelines for their implementation. For
instance, in the landmark case of 7D.K. Basu v. State of
West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down specific
guidelines to prevent custodial torture and abuse by
police authorities, thereby strengthening the procedural
safeguards available to the accused.
7D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
The rights of the accused are not merely legal formalities
but fundamental principles that underpin the integrity of
the criminal justice system in India. They ensure that the
process of determining guilt is conducted fairly,
transparently, and justly, thereby upholding the rule of
law and the principles of natural justice. These rights
reflect India's commitment to the universal principles of
human rights and the protection of individual dignity,
even in the face of criminal accusations.

The rights of the accused in Indian laws are

comprehensive and multifaceted, aimed at ensuring
justice, fairness, and humane treatment within the
criminal justice system. These rights are a vital
component of the legal framework, reflecting India's
adherence to international human rights standards and
its commitment to upholding the rule of law. A detailed
examination of these rights reveals a robust system
designed to protect the accused at every stage of the legal
process, from arrest to trial and beyond.

0.1 INDIA LEGAL SYSTEM

In the legal framework of India, we adhere to an

adversarial criminal justice system. This means that in
any judicial criminal proceeding, no decision is rendered
without providing a reasonable opportunity for the
accused individual to present their side of the story. This
ensures fairness and the principle of natural justice,
wherein all parties involved have the chance to be heard
and participate in the legal process.
Principles of Legality:

 Nullum sine crimen lege.

 Nullum poena sine lege.
 Audi alteram partem
 Ex-post facto laws, etc.

The principle of legality, rooted in foundational legal

doctrines, serves as a cornerstone of legal systems
worldwide, including India's. These principles include
"nullum sine crimen lege" (no crime without law), which
asserts that an act cannot be considered a crime unless
it is defined as such by law, and "nullum poena sine lege"
(no punishment without law), emphasising that no
punishment can be inflicted without a pre-existing law
prescribing it.

Additionally, the principle of "audi alteram partem" (hear

the other side) ensures that all parties involved in a legal
proceeding have the opportunity to present their
arguments and evidence before a decision is made.
Furthermore, the prohibition of "ex post facto laws"
prevents the retroactive application of laws to punish
actions that were not considered illegal at the time they
were committed.

In alignment with these fundamental legal principles,

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the
"Right to Equality." Under this provision, accused
individuals are granted specific rights and privileges to
defend themselves. These rights include the presumption
of innocence until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial,
legal representation, the opportunity to confront
witnesses and the evidence presented against them, and
protection against arbitrary treatment or discrimination.

By upholding these principles and constitutional

provisions, the Indian legal system ensures that accused
persons are afforded due process and are empowered to
assert their rights effectively in legal proceedings, thus
safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the justice
system.

0.2 WHO IS ACCUSED?

Webster Law Dictionary: An accused person is an

individual or individuals who face allegations of
wrongdoing, whether it be a charge, crime, or
misbehavior. This definition encompasses anyone who is
the subject of accusations within a legal context. It
implies that an accused person is someone against whom
formal accusations have been made, indicating their
involvement in a legal proceeding where they must
address the allegations brought against them.

Black Law Dictionary: An accused person is defined as

someone who has been blamed for wrongdoing,
particularly someone who has been subjected to actual
restraints on their liberty through an arrest, or a person
against whom a formal indictment or information has
been returned. This definition highlights that the
accused is an individual who is officially charged with a
crime and may be detained or face formal legal
proceedings.
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: An
accused person is defined as someone against whom
evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding.
This definition emphasizes that the accused is the
individual targeted by the evidence presented during a
criminal trial, aiming to prove their involvement in the
alleged offence.

0.3 WHAT IS RIGHT?

According to John Salmond, a right is an interest that

the law recognises and safeguards. It is a legally
enforceable claim that an individual possesses against
another individual or the state. Salmond highlights that
rights are fundamental to the concept of justice because
they provide individuals with entitlements protected by
legal mechanisms and institutions. These rights enable
individuals to defend their legitimate interests, seek
redress for grievances, and ensure they are treated fairly
under the law. This legal protection is essential for
maintaining social order and justice.

0.4 INDIAN LEGISLATION AND RIGHT OF ACCUSED: -

 Constitutional Law of India.

 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Constitutional Law of India: The Constitution of India,

in Part II, guarantees fundamental rights to citizens.
Some of these fundamental rights are also available to
accused, under-trial, and suspected persons. These
persons are also entitled to benefits under Articles. 32
and 226 of the Constitution.

Right against Handcuffing: With emerging trends in

human rights, the general rule is that handcuffing of the
accused is a violation of Art. 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution. But it is permitted under exceptional cases,
and a special reason should be recorded when
handcuffing is permitted. In 8Prem Shankar Shukla’s
AIR 1980 SC 1535 case, the SC laid down that
handcuffing is not permitted.

Right to Life: It is guaranteed under Art. 21 of the

Constitution. It is a fundamental right as well as a
natural right. “No one shall be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.” 9Babu Singh v. State of UP AIR
1978 SCR(2) The Supreme Court declares that refusal to
grant bail in a murder case without a reasonable case
would amount to a denial of personal liberty. 10Sunil
Batra’s AIR 1980 SCR (2) 557 case is a landmark case
on “solitary confinement.” The SC held that solitary
confinement done by the prison authority of an under-
trial prisoner without reasonable reason violates Art. 21
of the Constitution.

Right to a Fair Trial: This right is enshrined by all

democratic countries as a basic human right. This right
basically deals with the administration of justice,
because without proper administration of the law, there

8Prem Shankar Shukla’s AIR 1980 SC 1535

9Babu Singh v. State of UP AIR 1978 SCR (2)
10Sunil Batra’s AIR 1980 SCR (2) 557
is no benefit of just and fair laws. The scope of this right
comes under Art. 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark
case of 11Maneka Gandhi AIR 1978 SCR (2) 621, the
Supreme Court held that procedure established by law
means right, just, and fair procedure that embodies the
principles of natural justice. 12Rattiram v. State of M.P.
(2012), 4 SCC 516 SC, entrenched the concept of due
process of law, which is the bedrock of Art. 21 of the
Constitution.

Right to a Speedy Trial: Speedy trial is one of the

essential ingredients of the right to a fair trial and Art. 21
of the Constitution. Delayed trials of under-trial
prisoners’ mean justice is denied to them. 13Hussainara
Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1379 The SC
held that a speedy trial is part of the fundamental right
to life and personal liberty. 14Kadra Pahadiya v. State
of Bihar, AIR 1981 SCC 671 SC, enunciated that
speedy trial is a fundamental right and commented
against the cases of several under-trial prisoners who
were in jail without proper trial.

Right to Counsel: The accused has a right to defend

himself with counsel. It is an essential feature or integral
part of Art. 21 of the Constitution and Sec. 303 of the
Cr.P.C. right to have a lawyer of his choice that the
person should be given a reasonable opportunity of
hearing and prove himself innocent. The International
Commission of Jurists met in Delhi in 959, stressing the

11Maneka Gandhi AIR 1978 SCR (2) 621

12Rattiramv. State of M.P. (2012), 4 SCC 516 SC
13Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1379
14Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SCC 671 SC
importance of legal representation on behalf of the
accused.

Right to Free Legal Aid: Art. 39-A of the Constitution

provides legal aid to protect poor accused or under-trial
prisoners against injustice and to secure for them their
constitutional and statutory rights. 15Suk Das v/s UT of
AP AIR 1986 SC 991 The Apex Court held that failure to
apply free legal aid to the accused at the state’s cost
would vitiate the trial. If the accused not provided with
legal aid within a reasonable time, this is a violation of
Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Right against Retrospective Application of Penal Law:

Nullius crimen sine ledge and Nullium poena sine ledge
are two maxims dealing with this right, which means
there is no crime without law and there is no
punishment without law, respectively. Art. 20(1) of the
Constitution prohibits only conviction or sentence, not
trial.

Right against Double Jeopardy: Nemo debet Proeadem

Causa bis Vexari: A man cannot be put twice in jeopardy
for the same offence. Autrefois acquit or Autrefois
convict: previous acquittal or previous conviction.
16Kolla Veeta Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venketeshwar

Rao, 2011 CrLJ 1094 (SC) The SC declares, “No one can
be tried and convicted for the same or even for different
offences, but on the same facts." Art. 20(2) of the

15SukDas v/s UT of AP AIR 1986 SC 991

16KollaVeeta Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venketeshwar Rao, 2011 CrLJ
1094 (SC)
Constitution “No one can be prosecuted for the same
offence.”.

Right against self-incrimination: 17Nandini Satpathi vs.

P.L.Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025 SC, upheld the right
against self-incrimination. The authority cannot compel
the accused to give any testimony. Art. 20(3) of the
Constitution declares that no one can be compelled to be
a witness against himself. Section 161(2) of the Cr.P.C.
1973 also provides protection against self-incrimination.
18Selvi vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 SC

held that protection under 161(2) is wider than 20(3).

Under Sec. 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a
witness is not excused from answering on the ground
that his answer will incriminate him. The object of this
section is to secure the evidence from whatever sources
are available for doing complete justice.

Right against third-degree methods: In India, physical

or mental torture, including the use of third-degree
methods during investigation or otherwise, has been
prohibited by law. Because it is a violation of the right to
life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Landmark judgements of 19Joginder Kumar vs. State
of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260 and 20D.K. Basu vs. State of
WB 1997 CrLJ 743 (SC), where the Supreme Court gave
guidelines relating to arrest and detention.

Right to Fair Treatment: Fair treatment is an essential

and integral feature of Art. 21 of the Constitution.
17Nandini Satpathi vs. P.L.Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025 SC
18Selvivs. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 SC
19Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260
20D.K. Basu vs. State of WB 1997 CrLJ 743 (SC)
Administrative and judicial actions are taken against the
police in cases of the custodial death of the accused if the
police are found guilty of committing unlawful acts. In
the 21Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR
1983 SCR(2) 337 case, Bhagawati J. held that police
have a duty to give fair treatment to the accused in police
custody.

Presumption of Innocence: The Indian legal system is

an adversary criminal justice system where every
accused of an offence shall be presumed innocent.
Sections 113-B and 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, incorporate provisions regarding the presumption
of culpable mental state with respect to the offences of
dowry death under Section 304-B and custodial rape
under Section 376(2) of the IPC, respectively. According
to 22Mohmd. Hussain Julfikar Ali vs. State (Govt. of
Nct) Delhi AIR 2012 SC 3860, the presumption of
innocence is a human right of the accused.

0.5 RIGHT UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE:

Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of India, a

right refers to the entitlements and protections granted
to individuals, particularly the accused, to ensure a fair
and just legal process. These rights include the right to
be informed of charges, the right to bail, the right to legal
representation, the right to free legal aid, the right to a
medical examination, the right to a fair and speedy trial,
the right against self-incrimination, the right to be

Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SCR(2) 337

21

22Mohmd. Hussain Julfikar Ali vs. State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi AIR 2012
SC 3860
produced before a magistrate, the right to receive copies
of relevant documents, and the right to appeal. These
provisions aim to uphold justice, prevent abuse, and
protect the legal and human rights of individuals within
the criminal justice system.

Right to Grounds of Accusation: Section 50(1) of

Cr.P.C. and Art. 22(1) of the Constitution deal with the
right that no one can be detained in custody without
being informed of the grounds for such an arrest. Section
41-B of Cr.P.C. mandates the arresting police officer to
prepare a memorandum of arrest, which shall be attested
by a family member or a respectable member of the
locality. 23Dr. Rini Johar vs. State of MP AIR 2016 SC
2679 This is a landmark case on violation of this right
where the SC awarded rupees three lakhs as
compensation for violation of directions of law for making
arrest.

Right to Silence: Under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused

have the right to remain silent. 24State of MP vs.
Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 SC declares that the
collective effect of reading the provision of Art. 20(B) of
the Constitution with Sec. 161 [20, 313(3), 315(b)]
remains that in India law provides for the rule against
the adverse inference of silence of the accused.

Right to have a Copy of the FIR: Section 207 of the

Cr.P.C. provides for the supply of the FIR to the accused,
which comes into operation after the submission of the
charge sheet by the police before the magistrate. Art.

23Dr. Rini Johar vs. State of MP AIR 2016 SC 2679

24State of MP vs. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 SC
22(1) of the Constitution read with Sec. 41B, 50A of the
Cr.P.C. SC in 25Youth Bar Association vs. Union of
India AIR 2016 SC 4136, the accused has the right to
get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage as possible.

Right to a Public Trial: Sec. 327 of the Cr.P.C. provides

for the holding of trials in open court, subject to certain
exceptions given in sub-section (2) of said section.
26Kehar Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC

1883 Even if the trial is moved to a private house or jail,

it remains in open court.

Right to Bail:- Sec. 436-439 of Cr.P.C. deals with bail.

Bail is available for bailable and non-bailable offences.
Sec. 50(2) of the Cr.P.C. mandates the police officer
making the arrest to inform the arrested person of his
right to bail. 27Rasiklal vs. Kishore Khanchand (2009)
4 SCC 446 SC declares the right to claim bail
guaranteed by Section 436 of the Code is in bailable
offences is an absolute and indefeasible right. An
indigent person has the right to be released on a
personal bond instead of taking bail. Sec. 167(2) of
Cr.P.C. guarantees the right of the accused to get bail if
the investigation is not completed within 90 days for an
offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or
imprisonment for a term not less than ten years.

Right to Evidence Recorded in the Presence of the

Accused: Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that all
evidence in the course of trial shall be taken in the

25Youth Bar Association vs. Union of India AIR 2016 SC 4136

26Kehar Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1883
27Rasiklal vs. Kishore Khanchand (2009) 4 SCC 446 SC
presence of the accused to understand the case against
him and prepare his defence. 28Mohd. Sukur vs. State
of Assam Apex Court AIR 2011 SC 1222 SC held that
if a criminal case is decided against the accused in the
absence of his counsel, then there will be a violation of
Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Right to be Heard on Question of Sentence: Sec.

235(2) and 248(2) of Cr.P.C. confer a right on the
accused found guilty of an offence by the court to be
heard on question of sentence. 29Santa Singh vs. State
of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190 SC enunciated that when
no opportunity has been provided to the accused to
produce material and make submissions in regard to the
sentence to be imposed on him, failure of justice is
implicit, and therefore the defect of non-compliance with
Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. is not curable by Sec. 465 of
Cr.P.C.

0.6 RIGHTS UNDER EVIDENCE ACT

Right of Accused to Examine Witnesses: Sec. 137-166

of the IEA, 1872, deals with the examination of witnesses
among those Section 137 of the IEA, 1872, deals with
examination in chief, cross-examination, and re-
examination. During cross-examination, leading
questions can be asked and when they cannot be asked,
as mentioned in Section 143 of the IEA, 1872.

Right of Accused related to confession of a crime: If

the accused confesses his guilt on his own record, it can

Mohd. Sukur vs. State of Assam Apex Court AIR 2011 SC 1222 SC
28

29SantaSingh vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190 SC

be treated as effective evidence of his guilt. 30Vohra
Ibrahim vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SCR (3)
672 SC expounded that if a confession of guilt is not on
his own desire and has been given under some threat,
then such evidence is not acceptable. In relation to Sec.
24 of the IEA, 1872, Secs. 153, 154, 281, and 463 are
made under Cr.P.C., and it is the duty of the code to
ensure that all these rights are available to the accused.

Right of Accused for Information: Sec. 65 of IEA, 1872,

makes it clear that certified copy permitted under IEA,
1872 and the right to information under the RTI Act,
2005 fall under this ambit. The law protects the privacy
of communication between specific people while taking
into account the relationship between them. Those who
are married cannot be forced to divulge the
communication between them. These are two exceptions
to these provisions.

0.7 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED UNDER IPC

Sec. 96-106 of the IPC, 1860, deals with private defense,

which could be physical or for property. It is natural to
help oneself and protect oneself and their own property,
which is self-defense in criminal law.

Reasonable Doubt: The prosecution must prove its case

by adducing credible evidence and not by raising
suspicion, as however grave the suspicion may be, it
cannot take the place of proof. 31Raj Kumar vs. State of
Rajasthan 2013 CrLJ 3276 (SC) Sc expounded that

Vohra Ibrahim vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SCR (3) 672
30

31RajKumar vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 CrLJ 3276 (SC)

prejudice to the accused or failure of justice has to be
examined with reference to these aspects.

Benefit of Doubt: Sec. 105 of the IEA, 1872, burden of

proof. Reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt, but
only that doubt for which reasons can be given. The
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, and the benefit is given to the accused.
32Rishikesh Singh vs. State AIR 1970 CrLJ 132 doubt

of reasonable, astute, and alert mind arrived at after due

application of mind to every relevant circumstance of the
case appearing from the evidence.

Right to Reasoned Judgement: The accused have the

right to a reasoned judgement that is based on a logical
conclusion and not on surmises and conjectures; this is
the basic feature of a fair trial. 33Mulkhtiar Singh vs.
State of Punjab (1995) SCC 760 SC expounded that the
conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused
should be based on evidence.

32Rishikesh Singh vs. State AIR 1970 CrLJ 132

33Mulkhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995) SCC 760
 CHAPTER 03
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

0.1 INTRODUCTION

Article 20 provides the fundamental rights as well as

safeguards for the person accused of crimes. The
Constitution also provides that “no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.” This means that a person
can be deprived of life or personal liberty, provided his
deprivation was brought about in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law. Our constitution is based
on fundamentals that

“Let Hundreds Go Unpunished, but Never Punish an

Innocent Person”

The right to fair representation in a criminal procedure is

a facet of the right to equality (Article 14). Thus, the
accused is given fair equality on par with another citizen.
The accused persons are also granted certain rights, the
most basic of which are found in the Indian Constitution.
An accused has certain rights during the course of any
investigation, inquiry, or trial of the offence with which
he is charged, and he should be protected against
arbitrary or illegal arrest. The Judiciary Authority of
India also frames out a wider concept on the rights of the
accused person. Article 22 talks about no person being
detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be
denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice. Thus, to deal with these issues
and problems, Part III of the Indian Constitution deals
with them.

The Rights and Fundamental Rights are sections of the

Constitution of India that provides people with the rights.
These Fundamental Rights are considered as basic
human rights of all citizens, irrespective of their gender,
caste, religion or creed. etc. These sections are the vital
elements of the constitution, which was developed
between 1947 and 1949 by the Constitution of India.

Human rights are the basic rights available to any

human being by virtue of his or her birth race. It is
inherent in all human beings, irrespective of their
nationality, religion, language, sex, color, or any other
consideration. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
defines human rights” as the rights relating to life,
liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed
by the Constitution or embodied in the International
Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.”.

Protection of human rights is essential for the

development of the people of the country, which
ultimately leads to the development of the nation as a
whole. The Constitution of India guarantees basic human
rights to each and every citizen of the country. The
framers of the Constitution have put their best efforts
into putting down the necessary provisions. However,
with continued developments taking place, the horizon of
human rights has also expanded. The parliamentarians
are now playing a great role in recognizing the rights of
people and passing statues, amending provisions, etc. as
and when required.
0.2 PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF CONVICTION FOR
OFFENCES

Every day in our daily lives, we come across numerous

news reports of offences or crimes for which someone is
being arrested or in custody. Therefore, the Constitution
of India also frames out rules and regulations for
arresting an accused person and also frames out
protections, rights, and safeguards for the accused
person.

The Article 20 is the main pillars of the Fundamental

Rights, and it mainly deals with the protection or
safeguards of certain rights of conviction for offences, an
individual arrested for an offence, the provision of Article
20 safeguards their rights. The best striking feature of
this article is that it will not be suspended in any
situation, whether in an emergency period or not.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides the

following safeguards to the person accused of crimes:

 Ex-Post Facto Law Clause (1) of Article 20

 Double-Jeopardy Clause (2) of Article 20
 Self-Incrimination Clause (3) of Article 20

(A) Protection against Ex-Post-Facto Law

Clause (1) of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution says

that “no person shall be convicted of any offence except
for violation of 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.” Ex Post Facto is is a Latin word that means
‘after the fact’ or ‘out of the aftermath’ and is also known
as retroactive laws. An Ex-Post Facto Law is a law that
imposes penalties retrospectively, i.e., on acts already
done, and increases the penalty for such an act. This
means that expost facto laws are those laws that are
enacted after an action is committed, making such an act
illegal even though it was legal when committed. In the
literal sense, it’s a law that criminalizes such conduct
that was once legal. Protection under this law is vested
only for criminal offences, not for civil offences.

Provisions in Other Constitutions

 S. Constitution: In the United States, the Ex-Post

Facto Law is framed in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S.
Constitution. Over the years, when deciding ex post
facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has
repeatedly referred to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull6
case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established
four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto
laws.
 Irish Constitution: In Ireland, the Ex-Post Facto
Law is frame in the Article 5.1.
 Japanese Constitution: Article 39 of the
Constitution of Japan prohibits the retroactive
application of laws. Article 6 of the Criminal Code of
Japan further states that if a new law comes into
force after the deed was committed, a lighter
punishment must be given.
 K Constitution: In the United Kingdom, ex post
facto laws are strictly frowned upon but are
permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary
 sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament
before 1793 were ex post facto legislation, inasmuch
as their date of effect was the first day of the session
in which they were passed. This situation was
rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement)
Act 1793.7

In the case of 34Kedarnath v. State of West Bengal, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that whenever
an act is a criminal offence and penalty decided by the
legislature, it is always prospective in nature and can be
implemented in a retrospective way. This means that the
offence was committed in 1947, so according to the 1947
laws, the accused person should be governed. In another
case, 35Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab , the court
observed that if any retrospective implementation law
reduces the punishment or penalty for the said offence,
then it will be valid, and the court will govern according
to it. Therefore, the main aim is to maintain law and
order and to protect illegal detention. The first part of
Article 20(1) deals with the fact that if any act is
committed, for that offence, the accused person is liable
when the law exists for it. The second part of Article 20(1)
deals with the fact with the fact that if punishment was
forced, the offence committed will be applicable, and
there will be no retrospective operation.

(B) Immunity from Double Jeopardy

Clause (2) of Article 20 of our Constitution says that

“Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, which

34Kedarnath v. State of West Bengal

35Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab
means that no person shall be prosecuted and punished
for the same offence more than once”. The double
jeopardy is the law from which the accused person gets
protection that if he or she is prosecuted for the offence
and has the certainty within himself or herself that he or
she will not be prosecuted again for the same offence, no
other prosecution should be conducted for the accused
or punishes himself/herself. This law protects an
accused person from trying to get a charge or
punishment again for the same offence. If the person is
charged again for the same offence, then the court will
make the decision accordingly.

Several Reasons for Protection from Double Jeopardy

are:

1. Preventing the Government to use its Superior

Power on innocent.
2. Protection of the accused person from the financial,
economic, and social consequences of successful
prosecutions.
3. Elimination of cumulative punishment which might
be imposed by judicial.

Hence, it safeguards the individual's interest from facing

multiple punishments or successive criminal proceedings
for the same offence.

Four Essentialities of Double Jeopardy are:

1. The person must be accused of

2. The person should be Prosecuted
3. It should be for the same
4. The offence should commit more than
Provisions in Other Constitutions

1. S. Constitution: The similar provision of this law is

framed in The Double Jeopardy of Clause Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution:
[N]or shall any person be subject to the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or Limb.”

2. K. Constitution: The above provision of the

American Constitution is indeed founded on the
English Common Law rule ‘nemo debet bis vexari’. It
enabled an accused to plead not only for another's
conviction but also for his acquittal before the
implementation of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003.
3. Germany: In Germany, the principle of double
jeopardy is also stated in Article 103(3) of Germany’s
Constitution: “No one may be punished for the same
act more than once in pursuance of general
legislation.”
4. Japan: The Constitution of Japan states in Article
39 that “no person shall be held criminally liable for
an act which was lawful at the time it was
committed, or of which he has been acquitted, nor
shall he be placed in double jeopardy.” 11

In the landmark case of 36Maqbool Husain v. State of

Bombay, the appellant was arrested at the airport for
illegal possession of gold taken from another country
under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The
gold was confiscated, and the action was also taken, Sec.
167(8), for the appellant. After the prosecution of the Sea
36Maqbool Husain v. State of Bombay
Custom Authority, the appellant was again charged and
prosecuted for the same offence under the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The appellant has filed a
petition with the court for constitutional support, but the
court has rejected the pleas and observed that the
provisions of the Double Jeopardy Law are always
considered for only judicial proceedings. In another case,
37Venkataraman v. Union of India, the appellant was

dismissed for the service as a result of an inquiry under

the Public Security Act, 1960; later on, the appellant was
again charged and prosecuted under the Indian Penal
Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held
that the proceedings against the appellant for the same
offence are to be void. Hence, the second prosecution of
the appellant does not fulfil the essentialities of double
jeopardy, and it should not be protected under Article
20(2). Therefore, the main aim is to maintain the dignity
of the country, providing all the people with justice. For
committing any offence, the court will take action, but for
committing the same offence again, the court will declare
it void. This means that no person should get
punishment twice for the same offence. The doctrine of
double jeopardy provides a right to the accused person to
save himself or herself from being punished twice for the
same offence, and he or she can take plea of it.

(C) Immunity From Self-Incrimination

Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

provides that “no person accused of any offense shall be

37Venkataraman v. Union of India

compelled to be a witness against himself." The Legal
Maxim of Article 20

(3) is “nemo tenetur prodere accuss are seipsum,”

which means “no man should be bound himself.” 14 This
law states that no person can be forced to give evidence
against him. The Supreme Court has widened this term
so that the accused can’t be a witness against himself,
nor can anyone forcibly take his oral as well as written
evidence. The accused also have the right to silence as a
fundamental right. This article prohibits the obtaining of
thumb impressions or specimen signatures from him.
Three Ingredients of Self-Incrimination:

1. The person must be accused of an

2. Protection is compulsion forcibly to be a
3. Witness evidence should be given against

Provisions in other Constitutions

1. S. Constitution: The Fifth Amendment of the

American Constitution declares that “no person
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.”
2. K. Constitution: Under Common Law, this law
states that “a person accused of any offence shall
not be compelled to discover documents or objects
that incriminate himself.”
3. In the case of 38Nandini Satpathy vs. Dani (P.L.)
Nandini Satpathy was an appellant. As Dhani PL
was the respondent, the respondent has plead
against Nandini Satpathy. The police have charged

38Nandini Satpathy vs. Dani (P.L.)

 the appellant Nandini Satpathy with corruption. The
police want to prosecute and investigate the further
case. For the investigation process, the police have
called Nandini Satpathy to answer the list of
questions related to that case. With the same, the
police investigation officers have charged Section
179. The appellant has neglected it and also filed the
protection of self-incrimination with the Supreme
Court. The court observed that the accused person
is protected from self-incrimination, and this Section
179 should not be applied to him.

In another case, 39State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu

Oghad, the court observed that the thumb impression,
writing specimen, Signatures cannot be counted in a
“witness category.”. The accused cannot refuse the same,
and also, Article 20(3) does not apply to these types of
situations.

III. Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution says that: no person shall

be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.” he 21 is also called a
Hether Heart of the Constitution, the most organized and
progressive provisions framed in Article.

21.This Article states that, everyone has Right to Life,

Liberty, and the security of person within the country.
This means that the Golden Law of the country is Article
21 which signifies our major Fundamental Rights i.e.
Right to Life. It has a wider meaning which includes
39State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
Right to Livelihood, Right to Health, Right to live with
Human Dignity, Right to Pollution Free Air, Right to
Travel abroad, Right to Privacy, Right to Sleep, Right to
Education, Right to Free Air Legal Aid and many other
Rights related to our Life and Personal Liberty, along all
these Rights the Constitution has also framed out the
Rights for Accused Person,i.e. Arrest and Detention of a
Judgement Debtor. The purpose of this law, is that the
court give-relief to a Decree-Holder and also committed
that Judgement-Debtor will pay the sum of money i.e.
damages, which remains unsatisfied, if he is not paid
before. It also protects Honest Debtors, where his
inability to pay is supported by a reasonable cause. The
court has to afford the right to be heard to the debtors in
order to ensure proper justice.

0.3 SAFE GUARDS AGAINST ARBITRARY ARREST

AND DETENTIONS

Article 22 is one of the major rights for the accused

person and lies in the category of the Right to Freedom,
one of the Golden Fundamental Rights. Article 22 is
mainly divided into two categories: arbitrary arrest and
arbitrary detention.

 Arbitrary Arrest: Arrest is a legal and technical

word in which a police investigation officer restrains
a person who has committed a crime or offence, in
which a person’s maximum liability should be
determined by officers, and then the person has to
 live then the person has to live in legal custody and
under the control of the of the investigation officer.
 Arbitrary Detention: It is the violation of the
fundamental right, i.e., the right to liberty, in which
this person is arrested and his or her liability is
limited by nationally recognized international
standards. It is also an illegal prosecution, and it
makes the victim violate more human rights since
the victim is deprived of the right of the right to
defend themselves from torture, extrajudicial
execution, other cruelty, degrading treatment, etc.
 Punitive Detention: It means the detention for a
criminal offence occurs when the offence is
committed or an attempt has been made towards the
crime. This detention protects or provides a right
against the victim to imprison him, known as
punitive detention. It may be called “Detention as a
Punishment for the Criminal Offence.”
 Preventive Detention: It states that the
imprisonment of a person with the aim of preventing
the occurrence of any offence or crime in a country
It is an action taken by any administrative authority
that may be any wrongful action will commit that
might be concerning to a person, on whom authority
has a doubt, which might be prejudicial to a state.

The objective of Preventive Detention;

1. Security of the
2. Maintaining Pubic
3. Maintaining Foreign
4. Securing Services Essential to the Community
 o The causes of Article 22 are divided into
ordinary laws and preventive detention laws.
o The first part of Article 22 deals with the right of
a person under ordinary laws; clauses (1)–(4)
guarantee four rights to a person who is
arrested for any offence under ordinary law.
o The Second Part of Article 22 deals with a
Preventive Detention Laws; clauses (5).

(7) guaranteed three rights to a person who is arrested

under a preventive detention law.

 Right to be Informed "As Soon as May Be" of the

of the Ground of Arrest: Any person who is
arrested by police custody has a right to be informed
of the ground of arrest, and the police investigation
officer should also inform him or her of the ground
of the arrest as soon as possible.

· Right to be Consult and to be Represented by a

Lawyer of His Own Choice:

Any person who is arrested has a right to consult at all

times and can also be defended by lawyer of his own
choice. In the case of 40Joginder Kumar vs. State of
U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no person can
be arrested without being informed. Ground is lawful for
a police officer to do so on the grounds of arrest.
recommendations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the
Police Commission and further to police officers reflect
the Constitution's heart.

40Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.

i.e. Right to Life and Personal Liberty a Golden
Fundamental Right of Human. There must be some
reasonable justification, in the opinion of the officer,
against a person for such an arrest, which is also
justifiable according to the Constitution of India.

 Right to be Produced Before a Magistrate Within

24 Hours: When a person is arrested by the police,
the police have to bring him as soon as possible to
the magistrate without any further actions. 21
 Freedom from Detention beyond the said period
except by order of the Magistrate: Article 22(2)
also states that no person would be arrested or
detained before the Magistrate or Judicial Order.
After any judicial proceedings, the Police
Investigation or Arresting Officer can take any action
for further prosecution.

In the case of 41State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, the

police have arrested a person without any warrant or
judicial proceedings, and the court has provided
compensation as a constitutional remedy to a non-
accused person.

 The Detention of a Person cannot Exceed 3

Months Unless an Advisory Board Reports
Sufficient for Extended Detention: Clause (3) of
Article 22 talks about exceptions for Clauses (1) and
(2), which are deemed to be applicable to an enemy
alien who is arrested under preventive detention.
 Grounds of Detention Should Be Communicated
to the Detenue: For a person who is arrested or
41State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh
 detained by a police officer for any offence, it is the
duty of the police officer to communicate all grounds
of detention to the accused person.

V. Other rights from code of criminal procedure

 Section 54 of the CrPC states that when the arrested

person alleges that examination of his body will lead
to a fact that will disapprove of the fact of the
commission of an offence by him or that will lead to
the commission of an offense by any other person
against this body, or which will lead to commission
of an offence by the court may order the medical
examination of such accused person at the request
of the accused, unless the court is satisfied that
such a request is made for the purpose of defeating
the justice.
 Section 55A of the CrPC states that it shall be the
duty of the person under whose custody the arrested
person is to take reasonable care of the health and
safety of the accused.
 The arrested person is to be protected from cruel
and inhuman
 Section 358 of the CrPC gives rights to
compensation to the person who was groundlessly
arrested.
 Section 41A of the CrPC states that the police officer
may give notice to a person suspected of committing
a cognizable offence to appear before him at such a
date and place.
 Section 46 of the CrPC prescribes the mode of
arrest. i.e., submission to custody, touching the
 body physically, or to a body. The police officer
should not cause death to the person while making
an arrest unless the arrestee is charged with an
offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.
 Section 49 of the CrPC states that the police officer
should not be more restrained than is necessary for
the escape. Restraint or detention without arrest is
illegal.
 CHAPTER 04
THE CONCLUSION
 THE CONCLUSION

The emerging trend of human rights tends to mean that the

accused gets his basic human right at every stage of a fair
trial. A fair trial is at the heart of criminal jurisprudence,
and the Indian legal system adopts and coordinates with
international conventions that work for the development of
human rights. There are also provisions for indigent
persons, such as free legal aid, bail on a security bond, etc.
So the system is improving with the emerging trends of
modern and developed society.

The various safeguards provided in the Constitution as well

as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the power of arrest has
been misused by the police and government sectors. The
police officer also threatens to be violent with an accused
person, which is illegal from a fundamental rights point of
view. There has also been an unnecessary arrest of a
person; they made an innumerable report and also
constrained his maximum liabilities. It is the duty of the
police to inform all the grounds of arrest and detention,
and the police have to secure the rights of the arrested
person. The handcuffs are also not used unnecessarily,
which means not to harass any accused, and it is the duty
of policemen to present him before the magistrate within 24
hours.

Article 20 is the main pillar of Fundamental Rights, which

deals with protection or safeguards and provides certain
rights to accused persons for conviction of offences. The
Doctrine of Ex-Post Facto Law deals all about an act that
was not prohibited by law at the time of commission of that
particular act. Through the understanding of Article 20(1),
it would not be made a punishable act or an offence by
some legislation with retrospective effect, and no
punishment greater than what has been stated under the
law that is enacted could be made applicable to the act
committed at a particular time by making a law later on
with retrospective effect.

The provision of the doctrine of double jeopardy enshrines

the concept of same-offence conviction punishment,
meaning that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or
punished a second time. Hence, it can be concluded that
no one should get a punishment or penalty for the same
offence twice.

Article 20(3)25 deals with the protection against self-

incrimination; it provides an accused person with the right
with the right to remain silent at a time of prosecution; no
officer has the right to make a confession forcibly or
tortured.

Article 22 enshrines the right to accuse a person and also

provides a duty to a police officer. It’s the duty of the police
officer to present him before a magistrate within 24 hours
of arrest or detention, and it’s the right of the accused
person to inform him of all grounds of arrest. No action
takes place before a judicial order.

The Right of the Accused Person, or Fundamental Rights,

also enshrines the Human Rights, which state that there
should be proper rights for a person who commits an
offence. The Fundamental Rights are the basic rights that
are provided to all citizens of India, and the Human Rights
lie in them like protection of life and personal liberty,
dignity, etc. Every person in a country should be treated
equally in the form of caste, race, and well-accused or non-
accused. The person has the right to remain silent in any
case, which can’t be suspended under any emergency
provisions; likewise, the person has the right to privacy and
the right to sleep. The person can consult any lawyer of his
own choice; if he is not able to appoint any lawyer, the
state has a duty to provide him with a lawyer to deal with
his case.

****