Submitted by: Mayank Tanwar

Enrollment No.: 13517703820

Semester and Section: 5-C
Submitted to: Ms. Lovleen Sharma

Date of submission: 5th January 2023

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Pitampura, Delhi- 110034

2022

DATE OF JUDGMENT 15/02/1977

BENCH:
PN BHAGWATI and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali , JJ

Facts

The former chief minister of Orissa was arrested and charged with violating Sections161,165,
120B, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(d)
and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of a written list of questions,
the appellant and other parties engaged in the disproportionate asset case were questioned.
When a person has more assets than their total annual lawful income, that is considered to be
a disproportionate asset. She is accused of abusing her political influence while serving as
chief minister and of obtaining illicit satisfaction that boosted her riches.

She did, however, assert her fundamental right under Article20(3), which is the right against
self-incrimination, commonly known as the right to silence, against which a person is
booked, as her interrogation was focused on the process. Again, as a result of her behaviour,
she was issued a summons and booked before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at
Sadar, Cuttack, pursuant to Section 179 of the IPC.

In response, the accused petitioned the High Court according to Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution and Section 141 of the CrPC, challenging the validity of the judicial magistrate's
authority. However, the High Court declined to address the scope of section161(2) of the
CrPC when an accused imposes Article20(3) during a police questioning, which resulted in
the appellant's argument being rejected. And after receiving a certificate, she appealed to the
Supreme Court under Article 132(1).

Issue

Determining the scope of S. 161(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20(3) of the Constitution was
the main concern in this case.

Judgment

The court held that for invoking Article 20(3) the party pleading must be accused of an
offence, and that he/she was subjected to a compulsion to answer the incriminating questions
asked from them, and that calling a woman as a witness in the police station violates section
160(1) and influences her testimony and that section 161(2) and Article 20(3) immune the
witness from being forces to answer incriminatory questions at the investigation stage.

Analysis

Nandini Satpathy case was essentially a Constitutional law case, but even with respect to
Criminal Procedure, this case developed one of the most important principles of right against
self-incrimination.
These principles made the interpretation of Sec 161(2) of the CrPC more coherent, by stating
as to what question asked by the Police during the examination of witnesses, qualify as a
'tendency to
self-incriminate.' This is also important because it made protection under right against self-
incrimination available to witnesses as well, who have not yet been formally accused, but can
subsequently become accused.
The case also stressed a lot on the importance of legal aid, by stating that a witness can have
his lawyer present with him during examination, so as to consult him/her. And finally this
case showed how Sec 161(2) of the CrPC and Sec 179 of the IPC do not clash with each
other but are in fact in consonance.
This judgment is considered to be good in law, although in regards to the main principle, it
should ideally not allow right against self-incrimination to extend to 'tendency to be
incriminated for a different matter: But nevertheless this case to this day acts as one of the
most cited and important cases for right against self-incrimination because of its well-found
and sound principles developed.

Conclusion

The court claims that self-incrimination is more than "confessional" and less than "relevant."
Irrelevance is forbidden; relevance is legal; but, relevant questions are only legal provided
they are limited to that specific situation and their answers are not implicative when taken as
a whole. Even if the investigation is unrelated to that, he has the right to remain silent if his
response has a plausible chance of proving him guilty of another accusation that is either
already made or is about to be. He must, however, respond when there is no obvious
propensity to accuse. This indicates that, in accordance with section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, protection is offered when police question the suspect during an
investigation.

-x-