Question: A is arrested by the police in connection with an FIR registered against him by name at the instance of X, the victim of the alleged rape by A. A is arrested and in due course sent to Judicial Custody. While in judicial custody, the police make an application to the court stating that A has been… Read More »

Question: A is arrested by the police in connection with an FIR registered against him by name at the instance of X, the victim of the alleged rape by A. A is arrested and in due course sent to Judicial Custody. While in judicial custody, the police make an application to the court stating that A has been uncooperative during the time he was in their custody, and for the purpose of an effective investigation, the police want to have a DNA Profile of A for a scientific investigation of...

Question: A is arrested by the police in connection with an FIR registered against him by name at the instance of X, the victim of the alleged rape by A. A is arrested and in due course sent to Judicial Custody. While in judicial custody, the police make an application to the court stating that A has been uncooperative during the time he was in their custody, and for the purpose of an effective investigation, the police want to have a DNA Profile of A for a scientific investigation of some specimens collected during the investigation from the spot and the evidence furnished by the victim.

A, on the advice of his counsel, declines to give the sample of his blood or semen, as called upon by the Police. He contends that in terms of the constitutional protection envisaged in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which says that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, he cannot be called upon to give any specimen as asked for the police and he also claims of his right to privacy is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The police contend that there is no bar for the court to compel the accused to comply with the requirement of the police and the court can use necessary means to secure the taking of the required evidence which is relevant under the Evidence Act. Decide on the application. [DJS 2006]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Compliance requirements necessary means to secure the taking of the required evidence which is relevant under the Evidence Act.]

Answer

Right to Privacy has been included under Right to Life and Personal liberty or Article 21of the Indian Constitution, and Article 20(3) provides Right against Self- Incrimination which protects an accused person in criminal cases from providing pieces of evidence against him or evidence which can make him guilty.

Amongst all these rights provided to the accused one should not forget the protection and safety of the victims and witnesses. Hence, the accused cannot be in any circumstance provided with absolute rights and reasonable restrictions can be imposed on them in order to balance other parties’ interests.

It has been held by the Supreme Court on several occasions that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty is not an absolute Right. In Govind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 1378.), Supreme Court held that a fundamental right must be subject to the restriction on the basis of compelling public interest.

In another case, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1295) Supreme Court held that the Right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution. It is clear from various decisions which have been delivered by the Supreme Court from time to time that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty which has been guaranteed under our Indian Constitutions not an absolute one and it can be subject to some restriction.

And it is on this basis that the constitutionality of the laws affecting the Right to Life and Personal Liberty are upheld by the Supreme Court which includes medical examination of the rape accused.

In Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 2007 SC 132) the accused was charged for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl. When the body of the child was recovered, some strands of hair were found in the closed fist of the child. The police wanted to analyze the hair found in the fist of the victim with that of the hair of the accused, but he refused to give the hair sample.

The Supreme Court observed that the accused had protection against self-incrimination not to give hair. But here in such cases if the court started to consider this type of right of self-incrimination then this right might be misuse by many accused though being not reasonable to allow them such rights. So, yes the accused in the present case will not qualify to exercise his right under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the constitution and can be compelled by the police to give his specimen for the identification of the accused.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
  3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
  4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-05-28T04:19:53+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story