21
Introducti on The right against self-incrimination had it¶s roots in the opposition to the use o the ex officio oath by the English ecclesiastical courts and it¶s development was intrinsically intertwined with the political and religious disputes of early England. Pope Innocent III introduced into the ecclesiastical courts the ³jusjurandum d veritate dicenda´ or inquisitorial oath. Prior to this trials in the ecclesiastical courts had been by ordeal or compurgation oath, the formal swearing by the party and his oath helpers. Unlike the procedure used in the administration of the compurgation oath, the inquisitorial oath involved active interrogation of the accused by the judge in addition to the accused¶s uncomfortable consciousness of his oath to reveal the entire truth of the matter under enquiry. There was always opposition to this procedure but this opposition became particularly strong when the procedure was adopted by the Court of the Star Chamber and used to pursue it¶s broad political mandate.[1] The abolition of the above mentioned procedure and the creation of the right against self-incrimination owes it¶s birth to a great extent to one John Lillburn . He was arrested upon a charge before the Star Chamber involving the printing or importing of heretical and seditious books, Lillburn denied these charges under the Attorney Genereal¶s interrogation. When asked about other matters, however he refused to respond. He was whipped and pilloried for his refusal to take a legal oath. Subsequently he applied to Parliament and in 1641 the Long Parliament passed a bill to abolish the Courts of High Commission and Star Chamber and to prohibit the administration of an ex officio oath requiring answers to ³things penal´. There was much such reform post this however this only affected trial procedure and the practice of pre-trial examination (and the use of results at trial) remained unmodified till 1848.[2] In course of time this principle was extended as a privilege to witnesses against self-incrimination in giving oral testimony or in producing documents. The Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 made an accused a competent witness on his own behalf and thus introduced a change, but as to oral testimony of witnesses and production of documents, the protection against self incrimination continued as before.[3] These principles were carried to America and were incorporated ther by means of the 5th Amendment.[4] Later, the doctrine was further extended and it was held that unreasonable search and seizures of documents also would be hit by the 4th and 5th Amendments and the documents and evidence so obtaine would be inadmissible in evidence. In India, Article 20(3) makes the right against self-incrimination a fundamental right. Article 20(3) reads as follows : 20(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Before moving further, it is of paramount importance to note that as per the language of Article 20(3), is There are various provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which deal with the right against self-incrimination during both police investigations as well as during trial. Research Methodolog y Aims and Objectives ± 1) To unde rstand the meaning of the right against self-incrimination.
![primati [Režim kompatibility] - kzr.agrobiologie.czkzr.agrobiologie.cz/natural/data/databiomonitoring/primati.pdf · 16.4.2010 2 2) Lov do pastí • nutný odchyt a riziko uspání](https://static.dokumenty.site/doc/80x56/5c6d150209d3f246468b8b5e/primati-rezim-kompatibility-kzr-1642010-2-2-lov-do-pasti-nutny.jpg)
