Cooperating in probe not about admitting guilt: SC

The Supreme Court has underscored that cooperation with an investigation does not entail an obligation for the accused to admit guilt, observing that the prosecution bears the onus of proving its case independently and cannot rely on extracting self-incriminating evidence from the accused.

“It is important to note that cooperating with the investigation does not mean that the accused has to admit his guilt,” stated a bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

The court’s observation came on Tuesday while granting pre-arrest bail to Govind Singh Yadav, an accused in a 2022 cheating and forgery case whose anticipatory bail was sought to be contested by the prosecution on the ground that he did not produce the required documents for the investigation.

However, the court noted that Yadav had appeared before the investigators and had complied with its earlier interim protection order from September 9, adding that cooperation cannot equate to self-incrimination. The court highlighted that the prosecution must discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot expect the accused to provide evidence to incriminate themselves.

The apex court’s observation aligns with the constitutional right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. This principle ensures that no individual accused of an offense can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

In Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani (1978), the top court emphasised that silence or refusal to answer during questioning cannot be construed as evidence of guilt. “The ban on self-accusation and the right to silence, while one investigation or trial is underway, goes beyond that case and protects the accused in regard to other offences pending or imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of criminatory matter,” the court held.

Similarly, in Selvi Vs State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the sanctity of the right against self-incrimination, ruling that narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping procedures conducted without consent violate Article 20(3). “We must recognise the importance of personal autonomy in aspects such as the choice between remaining silent and speaking. An individual’s decision to make a statement is the product of a private choice and there should be no scope for any other individual to interfere with such autonomy, especially in circumstances where the person faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties,” the court held in this landmark decision.

In the present case, the first information report (FIR) accused Yadav of impersonating a government official and visiting the complainant’s residence accompanied by a police constable. During this visit, he allegedly took photographs of certain original documents under the pretense of official authority. Subsequently,the complainant, who filed the private complaint leading to the registration of the FIR, contended that Yadav falsely claimed governmental authority to gain access to these documents and used them for fraudulent purposes. Yadav sought anticipatory bail in the case, arguing that the accusations were fabricated and that he had cooperated with the investigation to the extent required by law.