constitution of india and criminal justice BSA

UNIT-II Teaching Hours: 15 Hours
Law
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
S.2(1)e – Definition of Evidence,
Ss.3-14- Relevancy of Facts,
Ss. 15-27- Admission and Confession,
S.39- Opinion of Experts,
S.57- Primary Evidence,
S.58- Secondary Evidence,
S.61-Electronic Digital Records,
S.63- Admissibility of Electronic Records,
S.136- Exclusion from witness upon production of documents,
S.140-144- Examination and Cross Examination,
S.158- Impeaching credit of witness,
S. 165- Production of Documents
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
FIR, Zero FIR,
S.6- Courts,
S.197-Inquary and Trial,
Ss.105/185- Videographer of Search and Seizure,
S.176- Procedure for Investigation
S.178- Power to hold investigation,
S.180-Examination of witness by police,
S.184-Medical examination of victims of rape,
S.193/194-Police report,
S.329- report of Government Scientific experts etc.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
S.3- General Explanations, Mens Rea, Actus Reus,
S. Sections 45-62-Abetment/Criminal Conspiracy/Attempt,
S.63- Sexual Offences,
S.101- Murder,
S.178- Counterfeiting,
S.317-Receiving stolen property etc.

Criminal Justice System: Constitution of India- Rights and Duties,
Law Enforcement, Police,prison,
Prosecution and Forensic Scientist relationship (Crime prevention).
Report writing and evidence evaluation: Components of reports and report format in
respect of crime scene and laboratory findings.
Court testimony: Admissibility of expert testimony, pre court preparation and court
appearance, examination in chief, cross-examination and re- examination

THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
2. (1) In this Adhiniyam, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence;
(b) "conclusive proof" means when one fact is declared by this Adhiniyam to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it;
(c) "disproved" in relation to a fact, means when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence
so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist;
(d) "document" means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records.
Illustrations.
(i) A writing is a document.
(ii) Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents.
(iii) A map or plan is a document.
(iv) An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document.
(v) A caricature is a document.
(vi) An electronic record on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptop or smartphone, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on digital devices are documents;
(e) "evidence" means and includes—
(i) all statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence;
(ii) all documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence;
(f) "fact" means and includes—
(i) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations.
(i) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(ii) That a person heard or saw something, is a fact.
(iii) That a person said certain words, is a fact.
(iv) That a person holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a
specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact;
(g) "facts in issue" means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation.—Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.
Illustrations.
A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial, the following facts may be in issue:—
(i) That A caused B's death.
(ii) That A intended to cause B's death.
(iii) That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B.
(iv) That A, at the time of doing the act which caused B's death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature;
(h) "may presume".—Whenever it is provided by thisAdhiniyam that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is
disproved or may call for proof of it;
(i) "not proved".—A fact is said to be not proved when it is neither proved nor disproved;
(j) "proved".—A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists;
(k) "relevant".—A fact is said to be relevant to another when it is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts;
(l) "shall presume".—Whenever it is directed by this Adhiniyam that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.

PART II

CHAPTER II

RELEVANCY OF FACTS
3. Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and
of no others.
Explanation.—This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.
Illustrations.
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death.
At A's trial the following facts are in issue:—
A's beating B with the club;
A's causing B's death by such beating;
A's intention to cause B's death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Closely connected facts
4. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and jails are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
5. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened,
or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B's health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.
6. (1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.—The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this
Adhiniyam.
Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) Ais tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that, not long before, the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions
of the alleged will relate; that he consulted advocates in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared, of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before, or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence—"the police are coming to look for the person who robbed B", and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B ten thousand rupees. The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A's presence and hearing—"I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B ten thousand rupees", and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded, after receiving a letter, warning A that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents
of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, A absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was raped. The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, A made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that, without making a complaint, A said that A had been raped is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, A made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the
terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that A said he had been robbed, without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section,
though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.
7. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which
establish the identity of anything, or person whose identity, is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A. The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the
libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant under section 6, as conduct subsequent to and
affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, A had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A's service, says to A—"I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer".
This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in
issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says as he delivers it—"A says you are to hide this". B's statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) Ais tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
8. Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
Illustration.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the State.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Mumbai,
E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Singapore the money which C had collected at Kolkata, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
9. Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Ladakh is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which
shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
10. In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.
11. Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant—
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
Illustration.
The question is, whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A's ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A's father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A's father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in whichA's father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A's neighbours, are relevant facts.
12. Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.
Explanation 1.—A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Explanation 2.—But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this
section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
Illustrations.
(a) Ais accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.
(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit currency which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit currency is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit currency knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B's, which B knew to be ferocious. The fact that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.
(d) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious. The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same
manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant, as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.
(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the
part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A's intention to harm B's reputation by the particular publication in question. The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.
(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. The fact that, at the time when
A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.
(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor. A's defence is that B's contract was with C. The fact that A
paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C's own account, and not as agent for A.
(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found. The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found. The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A's good faith.
(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A's intent, the fact of A's having previously shot at B may be proved.
(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters.
(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.
(l) The question is, whether A's death was caused by poison. Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms are relevant facts.
(m) The question is, what was the state of A's health at the time when an assurance on his life was effected. Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in question are relevant facts.
(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a car for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B's attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular car is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the cars which he let to hire is irrelevant.
(o) Ais tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing his intention to shoot B. The fact that A
was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.
(p) A is tried for a crime. The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. The fact that he said something indicating a general
disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.
13. When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in
each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not
accidental.
(b) Ais employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A's duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a
particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit currency. The question is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon
after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
14. When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Return Letter Office, are relevant.
Admissions
15. An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
16. (1) Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly
authorised by him to make them, are admissions.
(2) Statements made by—
(i) parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character; or
(ii) (a) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so
interested; or
(b) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
17. Statements made by persons whose position or liability, it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.
Illustration.
A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
18. Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration.
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B—"Go and ask C, C knows all about it". C's statement is an admission.
19. Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the
person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases, namely:—
(1) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as
between third persons under section 26;
(2) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in
issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable;
(3) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Illustrations.
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the
ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under clause (b) of section 26.
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Kolkata. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Chennai on that day, and bearing the Chennai post-mark of that day.
The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under clause (b) of section 26.
(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though
they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit currency which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the
currency as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts.
20. Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence
of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
21. In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
Explanation.—Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any advocate from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 132.
22. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person,
proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him:
Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed,
it is relevant:
Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.
23. (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information
received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.
24. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons
is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
Explanation I.—"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
Explanation II.—A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered C". The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) Ais on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said—"A and I murdered C". This statement may not be taken into
consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.
25. Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.

Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses
26. Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance
cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases, namely:—
(a) when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question;
(b) when the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him
in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of money,
goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him;
(c) when the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages;
(d) when the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed, he would have been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen; (e) when the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption between persons as to whose relationship by blood, marriage or adoption the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised; (f) when the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood,
marriage or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised;
(g) when the statement is contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction as is specified in clause (a) of section 11;
(h) when the statement was made by a number of persons, and expressed feelings or impressions on their part relevant to the matter in question.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B; or A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of which she was raped. The question is whether she was raped by B; or the question is, whether A was killed by B under such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A's widow. Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death,
referring respectively to the murder, the rape and the actionable wrong under consideration, are relevant facts.
(b) The question is as to the date of A's birth. An entry in the diary of a deceased surgeon regularly kept in the course of business, stating that, on a given day he attended
A's mother and delivered her of a son, is a relevant fact.
(c) The question is, whether A was in Nagpur on a given day. A statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept in the course of business, that on a given day the solicitor attended A at a place mentioned, in Nagpur, for the purpose of conferring with him upon specified business, is a relevant fact.
(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Mumbai harbour on a given day. A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant's firm by which she was chartered to their correspondents in Chennai, to whom the cargo was consigned, stating that the ship sailed on a given day from Mumbai port, is a relevant fact.
(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land. A letter from A's deceased agent to A, saying that he had received the rent on A's account and held it at A's
orders is a relevant fact.
(f) The question is, whether A and B were legally married. The statement of a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime is relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a letter on a certain day. The fact that a letter written by him is dated on that day is relevant.
(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship. A protest made by the captain, whose attendance cannot be procured, is a relevant fact.
(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way. A statement by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, is a relevant fact.
(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day in a particular market.
A statement of the price, made by a deceased business person in the ordinary course of his business, is a relevant fact.
(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B. A statement byA that
B was his son, is a relevant fact.
(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A. A letter from A's deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact.
(m) The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married. An entry in a memorandum book by C, the deceased father of B, of his daughter's marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact.
(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature exposed in a shop window.
The question is as to the similarity of the caricature and its libellous character. The remarks of a crowd of spectators on these points may be proved.
27. Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation.—A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

Opinions of third persons when relevant
39. (1) When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the
opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.
(2) When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or
digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence
shall be an expert.

CHAPTER V
OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
56. The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
57. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.
Explanation 2.—Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 3.—Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Explanation 4.—Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence.
Explanation 5.—Where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, such electronic and digital record is primary evidence unless it is disputed.
Explanation 6.—Where a video recording is simultaneously stored in electronic form and transmitted or broadcast or transferred to another, each of the stored recordings is primary evidence.
Explanation 7.—Where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each such automated storage, including temporary files, is primary evidence.
Illustration.
A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of
any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
58. Secondary evidence includes—
(i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;
(vi) oral admissions;
(vii) written admissions;
(viii) evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
Illustrations.
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.
61. Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.
62. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.
63. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that
part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether—
(a) in standalone mode; or
(b) on a computer system; or
(c) on a computer network; or
(d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage; or
(e) through an intermediary,
all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device; and references in this section to a computer or communication device shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic
record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied
directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without
human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).
136. No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to
their production

CHAPTER X
OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
140. The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.
141. (1) When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would
be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise.
(2) If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the
Court is satisfied with such undertaking.
(3) If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.
Illustrations.
(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 26. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit
the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact A which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts B, C and D which must be shown to exist before the fact A can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.
142. (1) The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
(2) The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
(3) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination, by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

143. (1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
(2) The examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on
his examination-in-chief.
(3) The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in
re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
144. A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as
a witness.
158. The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him—
(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.
Explanation.—A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
Illustrations.
(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that he delivered the goods to B. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered goods to B. The evidence is admissible.
(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died. The evidence is admissible.
165. (1) A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility:
Provided that the validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court.
(2) The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.
(3) If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
Provided that no Court shall require any communication between the Ministers and the President of India to be produced before it

Preamble of the Constitution of India

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is the introductory statement that outlines the guiding principles, ideals, and values upon which the entire Constitution is based. It reflects the vision and objectives of the framers of the Constitution.

Text of the Preamble:

"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens:
Justice, social, economic, and political;
Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship;
Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
In our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sixth day of November 1949, do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

Significance of the Preamble for the Criminal Justice System in India

The Preamble holds great significance for India's criminal justice system, as it lays the foundation for a legal framework that is aimed at ensuring justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. These ideals influence the criminal justice system by guiding the interpretation and application of criminal laws, ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, and that justice is fair and inclusive.

1. Justice (Social, Economic, and Political):

Core of the Criminal Justice System: The idea of justice as enshrined in the Preamble is central to the criminal justice system. Justice ensures that individuals who commit offenses are held accountable, victims receive redress, and society is protected from crime. It encompasses:
- Social Justice: Criminal laws should protect all individuals, regardless of their social or economic status. The system should be free from discrimination and ensure access to justice for marginalized sections of society.
- Economic Justice: Economic crimes (e.g., white-collar crimes, corruption) are equally punishable, and the criminal justice system should ensure fairness in dealing with both the powerful and the disadvantaged.
- Political Justice: Ensures that everyone, irrespective of political affiliations or power, is equal before the law. It helps in upholding the rule of law and preventing the misuse of political power in criminal investigations and trials.

2. Liberty of Thought, Expression, Belief, Faith, and Worship:

Protection of Fundamental Freedoms: The criminal justice system must respect and uphold the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, such as freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), while balancing them with public order and security.
Safeguards Against Misuse of Law: Laws should not be misused to suppress individual liberties, such as wrongful arrests or curtailment of freedom of expression. For instance, laws on sedition, defamation, and public order must be applied carefully to ensure they do not violate personal freedoms.
Prevention of Coercion: In the context of criminal trials, the liberty clause protects individuals from forced confessions (Article 20(3)) or coercive practices that infringe on personal freedoms.

3. Equality of Status and Opportunity:

Equal Treatment Before Law: The Preamble’s emphasis on equality is a cornerstone of criminal justice. Article 14 of the Constitution provides equality before the law and equal protection of laws, ensuring that all individuals, irrespective of their background, are treated equally in criminal trials and investigations.
Non-Discriminatory Legal Procedures: The criminal justice system should operate without bias or prejudice based on religion, caste, gender, or economic status. All accused persons, victims, and witnesses are entitled to fair treatment under the law.
Access to Justice: Legal aid and assistance should be available to everyone, especially the poor and vulnerable. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to legal aid as part of Article 21, ensuring that equality of opportunity in legal defense is upheld.

4. Fraternity Assuring the Dignity of the Individual:

Protection of Human Dignity: The criminal justice system is tasked with upholding human dignity, ensuring that the rights of both the accused and the victims are respected. The right to a fair trial, prohibition against torture, and protection against degrading treatment are all crucial aspects of criminal justice that derive from the principle of dignity.
Rehabilitation of Offenders: The criminal justice system should not merely punish offenders but also aim for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, respecting their dignity as individuals capable of reformation.
Humane Treatment of Prisoners: In line with the idea of fraternity, prisoners are entitled to humane conditions and treatment. Custodial violence, torture, or degrading treatment violates the dignity of individuals and undermines the values of fraternity.

5. Unity and Integrity of the Nation:

Preserving Law and Order: A fair and efficient criminal justice system is crucial for maintaining public order and protecting the unity and integrity of the nation. The enforcement of laws dealing with terrorism, sedition, public order, and other crimes that threaten national security must balance national interests with individual freedoms.
Dealing with Internal Security Issues: The criminal justice system plays a key role in dealing with internal security threats, such as terrorism, insurgencies, and communal violence, while ensuring that the law is applied fairly and impartially.

Interpretation by Courts

The Preamble has often been cited by the Supreme Court of India in interpreting the Constitution and laws, especially in cases concerning fundamental rights and criminal justice. For example:

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and its ideals form the basic structure, which cannot be amended or altered by the Parliament.
In cases concerning police brutality, unlawful detention, and custodial violence, the courts have referred to the values of justice, liberty, and dignity as embodied in the Preamble to safeguard the rights of the accused and to ensure humane treatment.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of "personal liberty" under Article 21 by referring to the ideals of justice and liberty in the Preamble. This case emphasized that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Conclusion

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution plays a foundational role in shaping the criminal justice system of India. It ensures that the system is just, fair, and protects the rights of individuals while maintaining public order and national unity. By guiding the interpretation of fundamental rights, it helps ensure that criminal laws and their enforcement are aligned with democratic ideals, human dignity, and social justice.

=========================================================================

The Constitution of India contains several articles that play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, ensuring rights, liberties, and the functioning of law enforcement and the judiciary. Here's a summary of the most important articles from a criminal justice perspective:

1. Article 14: Right to Equality

Principle: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Impact on Criminal Justice: Everyone is entitled to equal treatment in the eyes of the law, regardless of their social, economic, or political status. It prohibits discrimination and ensures that justice is administered fairly.

2. Article 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offenses

Key Provisions:
- Ex post facto law: No person shall be convicted for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.
- Double jeopardy: No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
- Self-incrimination: No person accused of an offense can be compelled to testify against themselves.
Impact: Provides critical protections to individuals accused of crimes, ensuring fair treatment in the legal process.

3. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Principle: No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Impact on Criminal Justice: This article has been interpreted broadly by the judiciary to include the right to a fair trial, speedy trial, legal aid, and humane treatment during arrest and imprisonment. It is one of the most fundamental rights in the criminal justice system.

4. Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

Key Provisions:
- No person can be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
- The person arrested must be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Right to legal representation and the right to consult a lawyer of one's choice.
Impact: Safeguards individuals from arbitrary arrests and ensures procedural fairness in the detention process.

5. Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies

Principle: Allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts if their fundamental rights are violated.
Impact on Criminal Justice: Individuals can seek direct intervention by higher courts to challenge unlawful arrests, detentions, or other violations of rights by the criminal justice system.

6. Article 39A: Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid (Directive Principle)

Principle: The State shall ensure that the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall provide free legal aid to ensure access to justice for all.
Impact: Ensures that even economically disadvantaged individuals have access to legal representation and justice, thereby promoting fairness in criminal proceedings.

7. Article 50: Separation of Judiciary from Executive (Directive Principle)

Principle: The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services.
Impact: Reinforces the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that the criminal justice system is not influenced by executive powers or political interests, thereby maintaining impartiality.

8. Article 124-147: Provisions Related to the Judiciary

Key Provisions:
- Establishes the Supreme Court of India as the apex court.
- Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs, hear appeals, and ensure enforcement of fundamental rights.
Impact: The judiciary plays a central role in interpreting and enforcing laws within the criminal justice framework, ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld in criminal matters.

9. Article 246 and Seventh Schedule: Division of Powers

Principle: Defines the powers of the Union and State governments to make laws regarding criminal justice, including legislation on police, criminal procedure, and criminal law.
Impact: The division of powers affects the administration and governance of the criminal justice system at both central and state levels.

10. Article 142: Enforcement of Supreme Court Orders

Principle: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any case.
Impact: Gives the court wide powers to ensure that justice is not hindered by technicalities, thus ensuring flexibility and fairness in criminal cases.

These articles collectively ensure fairness, equality, and due process in the Indian criminal justice system, protecting individual rights while maintaining public order and justice.

=========================================================================

Here is a list of important Supreme Court decisions on Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India:

Article 14: Right to Equality

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
- Key Point: The Supreme Court broadened the concept of equality under Article 14. It held that equality is not just limited to "equal protection of the laws" but also includes protection against arbitrariness in state action.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Key Point: Expanded the scope of Article 14. The court held that laws should be reasonable, fair, and just, thus linking equality with due process of law.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case)
- Key Point: The court upheld reservations for backward classes but ruled that they should not exceed 50% to maintain the principle of equality under Article 14.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)
- Key Point: The court laid down the test for determining if an organization is an instrumentality of the State under Article 14, bringing private entities with public functions under the purview of this article.

Article 19: Right to Freedom

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)
- Key Point: The Supreme Court struck down a law that imposed restrictions on the circulation of a newspaper, holding that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is essential to a democratic society.
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973)
- Key Point: The court ruled that the government cannot place unreasonable restrictions on newspapers, expanding the scope of freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a).
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)
- Key Point: The court examined whether surveillance on an individual violated Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely) and Article 21. It held that movement can only be restricted if it is done according to the procedure established by law.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
- Key Point: The court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which restricted online speech, ruling it unconstitutional as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Article 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offenses

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
- Key Point: The Supreme Court initially took a narrow view of fundamental rights in relation to Article 20, holding that preventive detention laws did not violate Article 20 if they were enacted before the Constitution.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
- Key Point: The court ruled that a search and seizure order does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), as it is not considered a testimonial compulsion.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
- Key Point: The court ruled that compelling an accused person to answer police questions, which might incriminate them, violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
- Key Point: The court held that giving fingerprints or handwriting samples does not amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Key Point: The landmark case that expanded the interpretation of Article 21. The court ruled that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, and any law restricting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)
- Key Point: The court held that the right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity, which encompasses the right to food, shelter, and medical care.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
- Key Point: The court ruled that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21, protecting pavement dwellers from eviction without a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
- Key Point: The court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, recognizing the right to a safe working environment as part of the right to life under Article 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Right to Privacy Case)
- Key Point: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, expanding the understanding of personal liberty.

Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
- Key Point: The court initially took a narrow view of Article 22, holding that preventive detention laws were constitutionally valid even if they restricted personal liberty, provided they followed the procedure established by law.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)
- Key Point: The court emphasized that arrests cannot be made on a mere allegation of an offense, and police officers must justify the necessity of the arrest, providing protection against arbitrary arrest under Article 22.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) (Habeas Corpus Case)
- Key Point: The court controversially ruled that during the Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended, thus limiting the applicability of Article 22 during emergencies. This judgment was later criticized and overruled in the Puttaswamy case.
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996)
- Key Point: The court stressed the importance of Article 22 in protecting individuals against arbitrary state action in cases of arrest and detention.

These cases have significantly influenced the interpretation and application of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22, expanding and safeguarding the rights of citizens in various criminal justice and constitutional contexts.

======================================================================

Key Provisions of Article 19 (Right to Freedom)

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms to citizens of India, subject to reasonable restrictions. These freedoms are essential to a democratic society and are regarded as fundamental to personal liberty. They are not absolute, and the State can impose reasonable restrictions under certain circumstances.

Six Fundamental Freedoms under Article 19(1):

Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- Every citizen has the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas freely.
- Restrictions: Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of:
  - Sovereignty and integrity of India.
  - Security of the State.
  - Public order.
  - Decency or morality.
  - Contempt of court.
  - Defamation.
  - Incitement to an offense.
Article 19(1)(b) - Freedom to Assemble Peacefully and Without Arms:
- Citizens have the right to hold meetings, protests, and gatherings in a peaceful manner without arms.
- Restrictions: The State can impose restrictions on this right in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Article 19(1)(c) - Freedom to Form Associations or Unions:
- Citizens have the right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies.
- Restrictions: Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of:
  - Public order.
  - Morality.
  - Sovereignty and integrity of India.
Article 19(1)(d) - Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India:
- Citizens can move freely anywhere within India without restrictions.
- Restrictions: The State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, the protection of scheduled tribes, and the safety of certain sensitive areas.
Article 19(1)(e) - Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of India:
- Citizens can reside and settle in any part of India.
- Restrictions: The State may impose restrictions for the protection of scheduled tribes, and in areas where certain security or public interest issues are involved.
Article 19(1)(g) - Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade, or Business:
- Every citizen has the right to choose and practice any profession or occupation and carry on any trade or business.
- Restrictions: The State can impose restrictions in the interest of:
  - The general public.
  - Ensuring professional or technical qualifications for practicing a trade or occupation.
  - Licensing and regulation in the public interest (e.g., industries like alcohol, gambling, etc.).

Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2)–19(6):

The freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 are not absolute. The Constitution allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the following circumstances:

Sovereignty and integrity of India.
Security of the State.
Friendly relations with foreign states.
Public order.
Decency or morality.
Contempt of court.
Defamation or incitement to an offense.

Key Provisions of Article 20 (Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offenses)

Article 20 provides protection against arbitrary and unfair treatment of individuals in criminal law matters. It ensures certain fundamental rights and protections for people accused of committing an offense. It is a safeguard for personal liberty in the criminal justice process.

Key Provisions of Article 20:

Article 20(1) - Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws:
- No person shall be convicted of any offense except for a violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense.
- Explanation: A person cannot be punished for an act that was not illegal or an offense at the time it was committed. Also, harsher punishments cannot be imposed retrospectively.
- Impact: This provision prevents the State from criminalizing an act retroactively, ensuring that no new punishments can be imposed on past actions that were lawful when they were done.
Article 20(2) - Protection Against Double Jeopardy:
- No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
- Explanation: This clause ensures that an individual cannot be subjected to double punishment for the same offense. The legal principle is "nemo debet bis vexari" (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause).
- Impact: Once a person has been convicted or acquitted of an offense, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same offense under the same law.
Article 20(3) - Protection Against Self-Incrimination:
- No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
- Explanation: This means that an accused person cannot be forced to make a statement or provide evidence that could be used to incriminate them in a criminal trial. This is based on the principle of "right to silence."
- Impact: The State cannot force an individual to confess or provide testimony that could lead to their conviction. It also includes protection against coercion by the police to confess to a crime.

Discussion and Interpretation of Key Provisions

Article 19: Scope and Judicial Interpretation

Article 19 embodies the core civil liberties essential to a democratic society. While the rights are fundamental, they are subject to restrictions that are reasonable and necessary to balance individual freedoms with collective security and public welfare.

The judiciary has played a key role in interpreting these freedoms. For instance:

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as it violated the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the restrictions were found to be vague and unreasonable.
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), the court emphasized that freedom of speech is essential to a democratic process and cannot be curtailed unless absolutely necessary.

Article 20: Scope and Judicial Interpretation

Article 20 is crucial in providing safeguards in the criminal justice system and protecting individuals from misuse of law enforcement powers. The protections under Article 20 are available to both citizens and non-citizens.

The right against self-incrimination is a vital aspect of criminal procedure and has been upheld in various cases, such as Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), where the Supreme Court emphasized that forcing an accused to answer police questions can violate this right.
The protection against double jeopardy ensures that individuals are not put through the ordeal of facing repeated prosecutions for the same offense. However, this protection only applies to judicial punishments, not administrative proceedings or disciplinary actions.

Conclusion

Articles 19 and 20 of the Indian Constitution are pillars of personal liberty and civil rights. Article 19 safeguards fundamental freedoms that are essential for the functioning of a democratic society, while Article 20 protects individuals from arbitrary and unjust criminal prosecution, ensuring fairness and the rule of law in the criminal justice process. Both articles, through judicial interpretation, have evolved to adapt to the complexities of modern society while maintaining a balance between individual rights and public interest.

=========================================================================

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 20 of the Constitution broadly over the years, adding several important protections to ensure justice and fairness in criminal cases. Here’s a list of rights that have been read into Article 20 by the Supreme Court:

1. Right Against Ex Post Facto Law (Article 20(1))

Principle: No person can be convicted for an offense that was not a crime at the time of its commission, nor can a person be given a harsher punishment than the one that existed at the time of the offense.
Landmark Case:
- Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1953): The Court upheld the principle that retrospective criminal laws are prohibited.
- Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (1991): It was reiterated that the law should not be retrospective and punish a person for actions that were not criminal at the time.

2. Right Against Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2))

Principle: No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
Interpretation: The Supreme Court clarified that this applies only to prosecution and conviction in judicial proceedings, not administrative or civil actions.
Landmark Cases:
- S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954): The Court held that the protection against double jeopardy applies only to prosecution for the same offense and not to departmental or administrative proceedings.
- Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953): The Court held that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense by the same judicial body, but separate offenses arising from the same incident can be tried separately.

3. Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))

Principle: No person accused of an offense can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Interpretation: The scope of this protection has been broadened by the Supreme Court to ensure fairness in the criminal process.
Landmark Cases:
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954): The Court held that the right against self-incrimination also applies to providing documents and not just oral testimony.
- Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978): The Court expanded the meaning of "compulsion," stating that not only physical coercion but also psychological pressure on the accused to confess or testify against themselves is prohibited.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The Supreme Court ruled that narco-analysis, brain-mapping, and polygraph tests violated the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) unless conducted voluntarily.

4. Right Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

Though Article 20 does not explicitly mention arrest and detention, the right against arbitrary detention and fair treatment during criminal investigations has been linked to Article 20, especially in conjunction with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Landmark Case:
- Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994): The Court ruled that police cannot arbitrarily arrest individuals and must justify the necessity of the arrest, thereby indirectly protecting individuals against unfair arrest and detention, which is seen as an extension of Article 20’s protections.

5. Right to Fair Trial

Principle: The right to a fair trial has been indirectly read into Article 20 in conjunction with Article 21, ensuring that criminal trials must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Landmark Cases:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court interpreted "personal liberty" under Article 21 to mean that procedures depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. This has influenced the application of Article 20 by ensuring that criminal procedures must meet fair trial standards.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) (Best Bakery Case): The Court highlighted the importance of fair trial rights in criminal cases to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

6. Right to Legal Representation

The Supreme Court has indirectly read the right to legal representation in criminal trials into Article 20. While the explicit provision is mentioned under Article 22, the protection against arbitrary prosecution under Article 20 is meaningless without adequate legal representation.
Landmark Case:
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to free legal aid is implicit under Article 21, and by extension, also applies to ensure that accused persons under Article 20 receive fair treatment during trials.

7. Right Against Custodial Violence

Principle: Protection against police brutality or custodial violence has been read into the protection against self-incrimination and arbitrary prosecution.
Landmark Cases:
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): The Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial violence and arbitrary arrest, including requirements for arrest procedures, such as informing the family of the accused and ensuring medical examination, connecting it to the fair treatment guaranteed under Article 20.

8. Right Against Retroactive Criminal Law

Principle: A person cannot be subjected to a retroactive criminal law that changes the legal consequences of acts committed before the enactment of the law. Article 20(1) is clear about this.
Landmark Cases:
- State of West Bengal v. S.K. Ghosh (1963): The Supreme Court held that if the criminal law is changed retrospectively, a person cannot be punished under that retroactive change.

Conclusion

Article 20 provides crucial safeguards against unjust prosecution, conviction, and punishment, and the Supreme Court of India has been instrumental in expanding these protections. Through its landmark rulings, the Court has ensured that these rights are not just limited to their literal interpretation but are broad enough to protect citizens from arbitrary, coercive, or unfair criminal procedures. This has solidified Article 20's role as a cornerstone of India's criminal justice system.

=======================================================================

In India, the Constitution and various statutes govern criminal trials, evidence in criminal cases, and the use of forensic tests. These legal provisions are designed to ensure that criminal investigations and trials are conducted fairly, based on sound evidence and due process.

1. Governing Articles for Criminal Trials

The Indian Constitution provides some basic rights related to criminal trials under Articles 20, 21, and 22. Additionally, the procedural aspects of criminal trials are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Key constitutional articles and provisions for criminal trials include:

Key Constitutional Provisions:

Article 20:
- Protection in respect of conviction for offenses:
  - Prohibition of ex post facto laws (Article 20(1)).
  - Protection against double jeopardy (Article 20(2)).
  - Protection against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)).
Article 21:
- Right to life and personal liberty: No person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This provision ensures fair procedure and the right to a fair trial in criminal cases.
- Landmark Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to a fair and just trial.
Article 22:
- Protection against arrest and detention:
  - Right to be informed of the reasons for arrest.
  - Right to legal representation.
  - Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
  - Protection against preventive detention (with certain exceptions).

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

CrPC, 1973: The CrPC governs the procedural aspects of criminal trials in India. It lays down the procedure for:
- Investigation (Chapter XII).
- Filing of Charges (Section 173).
- Trial of Offenses (Chapter XVIII for Sessions Trials, Chapter XIX for Magistrates' Trials).
- Bail (Section 436-450).
- Rights of the Accused during trial (Sections 303, 304 for legal representation).

2. Governing Laws for Evidence in Criminal Cases

The admissibility and rules regarding evidence in criminal cases are governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in conjunction with procedural provisions of the CrPC.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

This Act provides the framework for what is considered valid evidence in Indian courts. Some key provisions include:

Section 3: Defines "evidence," including both oral and documentary evidence.
Section 24-30: Deals with confessions and their admissibility.
- Confessions made under inducement, threat, or promise are inadmissible (Section 24).
- Judicial confessions made voluntarily before a magistrate are admissible (Section 29).
Section 45: Provides for the use of expert opinion in criminal cases, particularly in areas that require specialized knowledge (like forensic evidence). Experts such as medical practitioners, forensic scientists, and handwriting analysts may provide evidence.
Section 27: Deals with the admissibility of information discovered based on the statements of an accused, often used to admit evidence found after the accused’s confession.
Section 32: Provides for the admissibility of dying declarations (statements made by a person on the verge of death).
Sections 101-114: These sections outline the burden of proof in criminal cases, explaining that it is the prosecution's duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Relevant Case Law:

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The Supreme Court ruled that narco-analysis, brain-mapping, and polygraph tests cannot be conducted without the consent of the accused, as they violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

3. Governing Laws for Forensic Tests in Criminal Cases

Forensic tests play an important role in criminal investigations to establish facts such as identity, cause of death, or involvement in criminal activity. These are governed by various statutes and regulations, including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.

Key Provisions for Forensic Tests:

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act: Recognizes the opinion of experts in matters of science, including forensic science, medicine, fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis, and DNA testing. Forensic experts can provide evidence in courts on scientific matters.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
- Section 53: Allows the police to request the medical examination of the accused if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will provide evidence of the crime. This includes forensic tests like blood, semen, DNA sampling, and fingerprinting.
- Section 54: Grants an accused person the right to request a medical examination to prove their innocence, especially in cases of police violence or torture.
- Section 164A: Relates to the medical examination of rape victims to collect evidence of sexual assault. This section ensures the preservation of medical evidence for future trials.
Section 293 CrPC: Allows the use of forensic reports prepared by certain government scientific experts as evidence in a criminal trial without calling them as witnesses. Examples include the Director of the Fingerprint Bureau, Serologists, and Chemical Examiners.
DNA Tests:
- Courts have increasingly relied on DNA testing in criminal cases, especially for establishing paternity or in cases of sexual assault.
- Case Law: In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), the Supreme Court discussed the validity of DNA testing in cases of paternity disputes and held that DNA tests should be used sparingly and only when the court feels it is in the best interest of justice.
Lie Detector and Narco-Analysis Tests:
- In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that narco-analysis and lie detector tests, if conducted without the consent of the accused, violate their rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution (protection against self-incrimination).

Conclusion

Criminal trials, evidence, and forensic tests are governed by a combination of constitutional protections, procedural laws, and rules of evidence. Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution provide fundamental rights related to criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) lays out the legal process for trials and investigations, while the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility and use of evidence in court. Forensic tests such as DNA profiling, fingerprinting, and medical examinations are integral to modern criminal investigations and are subject to constitutional safeguards, particularly under Article 20(3), ensuring the protection of individual righ