Bodiuzzaman Khan :
In a US case (1) Earnesto A. Miranda a twenty three year-old indigent was convicted on the charge of kidnapping and rape of an eighteen year-old girl. The accused Miranda was identified in a police line-up as attacker and in the police officers interrogation, Miranda though not in initial stage, lastly admitted his guilt. After conviction, his attorney approached on the ground of Miranda’s confession was coerced and the police had violated 5th Amendment (US Const) right. The Supreme Court granted the review along with 3 other similar cases to consider the admissibility of confession. The court verdict was given by Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger.
The court examined the earlier decided case Escavado versus State of Illinois (2). Alike those in the 3 cases there the police officers took the subject accused to custody and interrogated him for the purpose of obtaining confession. The police did not effectively advise him his right to remain silent or to consult his attorney. The police hand-cuffed him and took him to an interrogation room.
While handcuffed for 4 hours standing the accused confessed. During the interrogation the accused was denied to consult his attorney who appeared in the police station .
The prosecution even against the objection introduced the confession in the trial. The Federal Court held the confessional statement constitutionally inadmissible.
The judgment held that in Miranda’s case alike in the case of Escabando their decision is not one innovation in the jurisprudence but an application of principle long recognized in their other settings and they only re-affirmed the principle of Escabado case. The Escabado case only was an application of the basic rights that are enshrined in the constitution, the judgment declared. The basic rights embodied in the 5th Amendment of the American Constitution are follows :-
Amendment 5 Rights of the Accused
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken or public use, without just compensation.
The court held that the prosecution may not use the statements whether exculpatory or inculpatory stemming from the custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguard effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination.
The measures required before any questioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him and he has a right to the presence of attorney either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of the rights provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If he wises to consult attorney there shall be no questioning by the police. There may be accused volunteered in answering questions yet his right is not waived.
The court held that the accused is questioned while he is in custody which deprives him his freedom of action in any significant way.
In all those cases effective earning at the out-set of the interrogation process was not given and questioning elicited from oral admissions as well as signed statements were admitted at their trials. The court found similar which includes (i) there had been incommunicado interrogation (ii) police dominated atmosphere and (iii) without full warning of constitutional rights.
The judgment held that the government-state or federal must accord the dignity and integrity of its citizens. The fruits of accusatory system are (i) fair-state-individual balance (ii) Government to shoulder the entire load (to prosecure) (iii) the respect of the inviolability of the human personality etc.
In accusatory system if the government wants to punish an individual has to produce the evidence against him by its own labour, rather than by the cruel, simple, expedient of compelling it from the accused’s own mouth.
The court also held that we are not unmindul of the burdens which law enforcement officials must bear often under trying circumstances. We also fully recognize the obligation of all citizens to aid in enforcing the criminal laws.
The court which protect indivudual right has always given ample latitude to law enforcement agencies in the legitimate exercise of their duties. The limits we have placed on the interrogation process should not constitute an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement.
Since Miranda case the accused’s right under the 5th Amendment of US Constitution is colloquially termed as Miranda right; Miranda violation, Miranda advice and Miranda warnings in the subsequent judgments of the Federal Court. The similar constitutional provision is embodied in the Article 35(4) of our Constitution which runs below :
Article 35 (4) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
But the provision is not at all applied to the criminal trials. The accused’s safeguard under Sections 164, 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Rule 467 of the PRB 1943 are in practice.
Since the promulgation of the Constitution the provision is very much obligatory upon the law enforcers in all in-custody interrogation and in the same line binding upon the Magistrates before recording any confession of an accused.
Miranda warnings if not tendered in any such cases effectively the records, confessions will be deemed inadmissible in the court of law.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, the PRB should be amended in the line of the constitutional provision. Even in the present state, in the absence of any amendment in the CrPC/PRB, the constitutional provision is equally binding upon all because the constitution is the Supreme Law, none can have any plea to deny, disregard, by-pass by words or actions.
(Advocate, Supreme Court)
