Table of Contents

The following landmark judgments explain the scope and interpretation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, including protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. These decisions clarify the constitutional safeguards available to an accused person during criminal proceedings.

  1. A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2024 INSC 186)

Held:
Article 20(1) does not prevent the Court from imposing a lesser punishment in an appropriate case if it believes that a reduced sentence is justified under a new penal law that prescribes a punishment lower than what was applicable at the time of the offense. The restriction under Article 20 prohibits imposing a harsher punishment than what was prescribed for the offense at the time it was committed. However, there is no restriction on the Court applying a lesser punishment if the law has since been amended to provide a reduced sentence for the same offense.

  1. Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC Online (SC) 1299

Held:
Calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution along-with the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 330 of BNSS), could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

  1. Balasaheb alias Ramesh Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 304)

Held:
The protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution applies only to self-incriminating statements related to the charges against an accused, not to all types of evidence. To fall under this constitutional safeguard, the testimony must be such that it directly tends to incriminate the accused. Additionally, for a person to invoke Article 20(3), there must be a formal accusation against them at the time they seek protection.

  1. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Ch. Gandhi (AIR 2013 SC 2113)

Held:
If ex post facto law is ameliorative it may be retrospective.

  1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (AIR 1954 SC 300)

Held:
Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) has following three essentials:-
(1) Person must be accused of an offence;
(2) This provision is a protection against compulsion to be a witness;
(3) Protection is against compulsion to give evidence against himself.

  1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (AIR 1954 SC 300)

Held:
A person whose name is mentioned in the FIR as an accused could claim the protection under Article 20.

  1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1977 SC 1025)

Held:
Supreme Court held that protection of Article 20(3) is available from the stage of police interrogation.

  1. R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1962 SC 1821)

Held:
A person is said to be accused if the formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which may result in prosecution and conviction.

  1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC 1974)

Held:
Lie detector tests should be administered only with the consent of the accused. In case the consent of the accused is not obtained then such tests are violative of Article 20(3).

  1. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others (AIR 1961 SC 1808)

Held:
The term "self-incrimination" means conveying information based upon the personal knowledge. It does not include the mere mechanical process of producing documents in court which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.

  1. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu (AIR 1961 SC 1808)

Held:
Supreme Court held that interpretation of the phrase 'to be witness' given in M.P. Sharma's case is too broad. 'To be witness' is not equivalent to furnishing evidence. Self-incrimination can only mean conveying information based on personal knowledge of the person giving information and it cannot include the mechanical process of producing documents or giving finger impressions or blood samples etc.

  1. T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe ((1983) 1 SCC 177)

Held:
Accused can take advantage of a beneficial provision under ex post facto laws.