Interrogation of accused persons is an indispensable aspect of police duty, including in cases of dowry torture and other criminal offenses. It is important to note, however, that the police authority is not absolute, and the conduct of police officers in criminal matters is entirely subject to the oversight of the courts, despite their being a subordinate branch of the executive.
The police cannot exert undue influence, and many officers face disciplinary and legal action annually. It is essential to recognize that the courts are responsible for safeguarding the human, fundamental, and legal rights of all citizens, including those accused of criminal wrongdoing, and not solely for punishing criminals. In our nation, the rule of law prevails, and although certain laws may be flawed and selectively applied, an alert citizenry can address such issues over time.
Returning to the police, they are as bound by the law of the land as any other citizen. Dealing with the police can be challenging since this department has the potential for corruption. It is crucial to understand that the officers one deals with are not usually in high-ranking positions, neither within their department nor at the state level. This is beneficial because several senior officers are available to whom one can report any illegal activities of the police officers working on a case.
In the context of law, the first and foremost right available to you is the right to legal representation. It is not uncommon to encounter individuals who will claim that such a right is not available in India and that it is exclusively an American concept. This misconception stems from Indian films in which police officers state “You are under arrest,” while their American counterparts declare “You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. Anything you say can and will be held against you.” This has given rise to the perception that the rights of arrested individuals in India are limited. However, this perception is unfounded.
The second right that you possess is the right to privacy. The police cannot enter your residence at any time they please. Instead, they must obtain an order from a higher-ranking officer before entering any individual’s home. They can only enter a house in connection with a legitimate investigation or administrative work or to apprehend fugitives from the law.
They are only permitted to enter during daylight hours if their visit is in connection with a criminal investigation. Furthermore, they cannot enter a home if a woman is alone in the house. They must have a female officer present when speaking with a woman. If a woman is in purdah, they must wait outside until she is appropriately dressed. They cannot enter the areas of the house designated for women in certain communities.
In the context of law, it is important to note that the police do not have the right to demand any favors, such as a glass of water or a chair, from the resident of the house during a search and seizure operation.
Additionally, they must be accompanied by respectable members of the locality during such visits. While India may not have the same level of protection for a person’s home as some other countries, there are still provisions in place to protect citizens in this regard.
Another important right is the right to choose a lawyer to represent you. Although it is not clear whether this right is absolute, it is certain that an accused person can exercise this right by paying the fees of a lawyer. The lawyer can be present during the interrogation and can help avoid illegal lines of questioning.
The police do not have the right to ask questions that could incriminate the accused or force them to undergo lengthy interrogation sessions. The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right recognized under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and is essential in criminal law. Confessions made to the police are not admissible in court, although they may be used if they lead to the recovery of evidence in serious cases.
In the context of the law, a confession must be made before a judge, and once an accused person has made their statement, they cannot be held in police custody. The police are also prohibited from calling family members, such as mothers or sisters, to the police station for interrogation, except in the case of accused persons under the age of 15 or female members. Any questioning of women must be done in the presence of their male relatives, and women can only be searched by women. Additionally, a woman can only be brought to a police station if she has been formally arrested.
It is important to note that the police are extremely cautious about bringing any woman to a police station, as accusations of custodial rape can lead to a presumption of guilt and life imprisonment. There are several court decisions, including the Nandini Satpathy vs. P.l. Dani case judgment delivered by a full bench of the Supreme Court in 1978, which have protected accused persons by policing the police and prohibiting coerced crimination. The judges in this case stated that “compelled testimony” is evidence obtained by means of psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, and other forms of overbearing or intimidatory methods, which violate Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. The refusal to answer or answer truthfully may result in legal tension, but if there is any mode of pressure, direct or indirect, applied by the policeman for obtaining information from an accused strongly suggestive of guilt, it becomes compelled testimony and violates Art. 20(3).
In the legal context, the preceding statement is a comprehensive definition of compelled testimony, which is crucial for safeguarding one’s rights during police interrogation.
According to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of an offense can be forced to provide self-incriminating testimony. The judiciary has interpreted this statement positively, leading to the prohibition of torture, violence, and coercive interrogation methods. Based on this provision, individuals have the right to a lawyer, the right to refuse to take a lie-detector test or submit to narco-analysis, and the right to decline questions that demand a confession.