Logo
Home | Contact us | User Registration | Comic Book | Press | Add To Favorites | Login
 
     
   
   
   
 
If you feel you have an experience worth sharing with all, post it now.
Share Now
 
   
 
Home > Know Your Rights > Right to Protection in case of conviction
FAQ's | Landmark Judgements | Legal Frameworks

Landmark Judgments

·  In the landmark case of Nandini Sathpathy Vs. P.L. Dani, 1978 the Supreme Court considered the legal basis of the police practice of interrogating suspects in the view of constitutional and legal safeguards available to a person under Article 20.Right to Silence was granted to the accused in this case and it was held that no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused, who has the right to keep silent during the course of interrogation (investigation).

 

·  In State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, 1961, Supreme Court held that: “It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against self-incrimination by the accused person. Self-incrimination must mean conveying information based upon personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in the controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.”

 

·  In Kalawati Vs. H.P. State, 1953, the Supreme Court held that Article 20 (3) does not apply at all to a case where the confession is made by an accused without any inducement, threat or promise.

 
 
 
Home | About Naughty Paa Ji | Archive Comics | Contact us | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use
 
Copyright © 2012 Naughty Paaji - All rights reserved | Designed & Developed by - V3+ Web Solutions  | Join Us On    |  Visitors : 13287