Police Interrogation & Human Rights

INTRODUCTION

Police are one of the most significant organizations of the Indian social structure. In an hour of need, a policeman happens to be the most appropriate person to approach. Police rules clearly state a police station to be a dynamic organization where anyone can approach without any hesitation. The rule also imposes an important job on police which is to maintenance of law and order. All these powers vested into the police authority sometimes leads to the misuse of such powers which in turn leads to violation of basic Human Rights. In this article, we will deal with the principles of police interrogation and how it sometimes violates basic human rights.

During the course of interrogation of the accused the police officers may attempt to make the use of force to extract confessions which would help them to either find a new cause solve the case or may help find truth facts of the case also on ascertain the offender of the crime. However, coercing the suspect to form a confession of the crime against his will is unsuitable to the democratic found out of India. In order to serve this purpose, the Indian criminal justice system incorporates several provisions in its substantive and procedural laws to ensure the protection of the accused during interrogation, while in custody and until the completion of the trial. In addition to the legal rights of the accused, the Constitution of India bestows upon the accused protection against human rights violations within the type of Fundamental Rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLICE INTERROGATION

The Police generally have the right to interrogate any accused person for a limited period of time with the permission of the court. Interrogation is completed so as to search the evidence or the other relevant information regarding the crime from the accused although, it’s tough to extract such information as it could be fatal for the accused. Under such situations, police use various methods to bring out the reality.

These methods are sometimes accustomed such an extent that it’s going to result in violation of the Human Rights and defeats the aim of the Criminal Justice System. Since the deterrent theory of crime isn’t followed anymore, the rights to punish vests with the court or the magistrate leaving the role of the police till the end of investigation.

Moreover, the Human Rights in India were violated during the period of Emergency, i.e., in 1975 when many people were detained by the police on the order of the Government without any warrant. Those who were protesting were tortured by the police officials during interrogation and there was no Audi alteram partem.

RIGHTS INTERPRETED BY COURT: –

Right to remain silent: India follows adversarial system of trial proceedings in which accused person is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved before the court beyond reasonable doubt. As the burden in this system lies on the prosecution and in turn on the police to prove the case before the court to such an extent to remove the shadow of doubt, the police who follow unscientific investigation through torture, threat, assault, harassment, etc. as methods to elicit confessions, facts and information from accused and witness of crimes. The accused has a right to confess or remain silent. However, the right to remain silent is not expressly provided under the Indian constitution. Article 20 (3)^[1] protects persons from self-incrimination thereby avoiding to be witness against himself in a crime. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to remain silent as implied under article 20(3).

In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra^[2], the court held that a person, whose name was mentioned as an accused in the first information report and an investigation was conducted by the police on the basis of that report, could claim the protection as a accused of an offence under article 20(3).

Right to Fair Investigation: In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat^[3], the Supreme Court reiterated that not only fair trail but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, from Abdul Rehman Antulaya case to Babubhai case the Supreme Court affirmed categorically that speedy investigation is an integral part of speedy trial, and hence delaying investigation process by the police is against constitutional right of the accused. Otherwise the very purpose of constitutional right of speedy trial would be meaningless.
Arrest: Arrest of a person by the police is another controversial area in the criminal justice process due to the wide discretionary powers enjoyed by the police and the practical misuse of those powers by them. According to the national police commission third report the power of arrest is one of the chief sources of corruption by the police and around 60 percent of the arrests made by the police are unnecessary and unjustified.

Even when arrest is necessary the police do not comply with the procedural requirements provided by the Constitution of India and the Criminal Procedure Code as observed by the Supreme Court in different cases. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir^[4] the petitioner an MLA, was arrested and detained in police custody and deliberately prevented from attending the session of the legislative assembly. The Supreme Court held that the police officials acted deliberately and hence the court awarded compensation to the petitioner.

Handcuffing: The police generally believe that handcuffing is a necessity in effecting the arrest and do consider the humiliation and embarrassment suffered by the handcuffed person and the disrepute of his family. In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration^[5], the supreme court held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable and over harsh and it is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of escape of the detainee.
Torture and death in police custody: The Constitution in India does not contain an express prohibition of torture. However the Supreme Court has construed Article 21 of the Constitution as including a prohibition torture. The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union of India^[6], held now obviously any forum of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity and constitute an inroad into this right to live and it would on this view be prohibited by Article 21 unless it is in accordance prescribed by law, but no law which authorizes and no procedure which leads to such torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment can ever stand the test of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness: It would plainly be unconstitutional and void as being violation of articles 14 and 21.
Fake Encounter: Fake encounter is another area where the police commit glaring human rights violations by way of atrocities and arbitrary killings against persons. In People Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that killing of two people in fake encounter by Imphal police was clear violation of right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and defence of sovereign immunity does not apply in such cases. The court awarded rupees 1,00,000 as compensation for the defendants of each of the deceased.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

The Constitution has guaranteed certain rights to the arrested and detained persons such as:

The right to be informed of the ground of arrest as soon as possible,
The right to consult a lawyer and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice,
The right to be produced before a magistrate within twenty four hours and
The right to be released from custody beyond the period of twenty hours if not produced before a magistrate.

PRINCIPLES OF POLICE INTERROGATION

It is a fundamental duty of the police to conduct investigation in every case that is reported. Interrogation and questioning are integral part of police investigation. The police gather crucial information by asking questions about the alleged offences. It is every person’s duty to provide correct and accurate information to aid police investigation when called upon to do so. In turn, anyone who is interrogated or questioned by the police has legal rights which have to be upheld. An accused is a person charged with a crime, and may either be arrested and in custody, or out on bail and summoned for interrogation as needed.

Police cannot compel the accused to make any statement or answer any question that would point to guilty of any offences. It is a constitutional right. [article 20(3) constitution of India] Police have a duty to inform the accused about the constitutional right.
The police cannot threaten or compel the accused in any way to admit to an offence. [section 24 of Indian Evidence Act and section 163 of CrPC]
The police must inform the accused about their right to consult a lawyer at the time of interrogation. The lawyer can be present during the time of interrogation. [section 41D of CrPC]
Women polices should be prevent during the interrogation of a women arrestee. [supreme court Judgement, Sheela Barse v state of Maharashtra]
Custodial violence including beating, torture, slapping, abusing or il-treating while interrogation or questioning is a crime. Any police officer should not practice any kind of custodial violence and it is amounted to a crime.

Custodial rape is also a crime and is punishable offences under the law.

CONCLUSION

Providing a way of security to ordinary citizens and reaching to their grievances depends on the establishment of a police which is efficient, honest and professional. The fact that such a police doesn’t exist in India, as attested by the findings of varied commissions and committees, the complaints received by the human rights commissions, the stories reported by the press and therefore the experiences of the folk on the road . The need for police reform is self-evident and urgent. There are two directions in which police reforms must be pursued simultaneously.

Hence it can be said that the police interrogation is a vital part of criminal trial but it must be done without hampering the basic human rights of an individual and make sure that the justice is not undone.

^[1] INDIA CONST art. 20, cl. 2

^[2] M. P. Sharma And Others V Satish Chandra, 1954 AIR 300, (INDIA)

^[3] Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, 1985 AIR 613, (INDIA)

^[4] Bhim Singh, Mla vs State Of J & K And Ors., AIR 1986 SC 494, (INDIA)

^[5] Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1535, (INDIA)

^[6] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, 1981 AIR 746, (INDIA)