The Tacit/implied Admission – Understanding Active Silence Under Indian Evidence Act

KEY TAKEAWAYS – 

• Analyzing the rights of the accused person to remain silent. 
• Tracing the ‘Origin of Right to Silence’ under American as well as Indian context. 
• Studying the various legal provisions and relevant case references pertaining to Indian jurisdiction. 
• Understanding judicial interpretation and constitutional safeguards. 

INTRODUCTION – 

In the Indian context, the legal implications of silence are quite complex when looked through the lens of the Evidence Act, 1872. This legislation provides a framework for what constitutes evidence in a court of law and under what circumstances silence may be interpreted as an admission of guilt or liability. The inability for an individual to not be able to speak as and when required on an allegation made against him can either be ascertained as acceptance or rejection of the allegation so made. 

This comprehensive article delves into the inherent significance of the right to silence as a fundamental protection for individuals involved in legal proceedings but also form an integral part of the constitutional principles, playing a crucial role in ensuring the fairness and integrity of the legal process, also the write-up underscores the essential function of the right to silence in protecting individuals from self-incrimination and coercion, it dives into the interpretation and application in real-world situation and by doing so it provides a nuanced understanding of how the right to silence operates as a safeguard against the potential abuses of power and ensures a just legal environment. 

But it is pertinent to note that the silence of a person under investigation for the commission of an offence is not indicative of his or her guilty consciousness and should be construed as an admission by silence because of various reasons, for instance the same could be because of inability of the accused to fully understand and reciprocate the questions posed by the investigation body or profound case of nervousness could be an inherent reason for remaining silent.

Lastly, in this article we will delve into the intricacies of how silence can sometimes amount to an admission under the Indian Evidence Act, exploring the conditions under which the law may interpret a person’s silence as an implied acknowledgement of the truth of certain assumptions. 

ORIGIN OF RIGHT TO SILENCE AND RELEVANT PROVSIONS FROM COMMON LAW COUNTRIES – 

• INSTANCE OF ANGLO – AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM – 

The right to silence has brief historic foundation that underscores its longstanding and fundamental nature in legal framework. The roots of this right can be traced back to the medieval England, where in compulsion in criminal procedure was evident even in the early thirteenth century. During this time, the individuals were time and again forced to participate in trials by ordeal (A former practice of criminal trial where criminals are subjected to painful tests by submersion in water to determine the guilt or innocence of a person) which reflected a coercive approach that emphasized the extraction of confessions through physical ordeals. 

The journey towards the formal recognition of the right to silence was a tortuous process shaped by the evolving legal principles and societal norms. The abrogation of the right should be understood in the context of this historical backdrop, emphasizing the significance of the right in ensuring fair treatment and adherence to due process of law for accused in question. 

In examining the historical development of the right to silence, it is essential to consider landmark cases and legal provisions from common law countries, One of the prominent sources is the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is often referred to as the right against self-incrimination. 

In the seminal works of Leonard Levy, “Origins of the Fifth Amendment and The Right Against Self-Incrimination,” he has explained briefly focused on the development of this fundamental right in the Anglo-American legal system. He primarily focused on emphasizing that it specifically addresses the right against self-incrimination and does not delve into other crucial provisions of the Fifth Amendment, such as the indictment by grand jury, double jeopardy and due process against private rights without compensation. 

He further traces the origins of the right to silence, referencing Deuteronomy in the Bible as a potential starting point. Implicating that the biblical requirement for at least tow or three witnesses in capital cases is linked to the maxim “Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Prodere” i.e. (no one is bound to accuse himself). The text highlighted this biblical requirement during confrontation with the accused, asserting the refusal to take an oath that went against the law of the land and the law ordained by the God itself. 

Lastly, the text touches upon the independent derivation of the right of silence mentioned in the ancient texts and later in further centuries by eminent jurists of the medieval age, he later perceived the development of right of silence as an inquisitorial technique presented to reduce the burden of proof on the accused rather emphasizing the same on the society to prove guilty consciousness under the Anglo-American Legal system. 

• IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM – 

Under the Indian Legal context, the right to silence is a fundamental principle rooted in the protection against self-incrimination, which is guaranteed under Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India, this provision envisages that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. With the right to silence is a crucial safeguard, there are instances where silence may be construed as an admission of guilt, and this nuanced aspect has been examined in various landmark instances. 

• LEGAL PROVISIONS – 

Under the Indian Legal context there lies numerous provisions which briefly explains he provisions relating to admissibility of silence as an implied admission of guilt. They are as mentioned below – 

(i)    Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – 

Section 22 of the IEA deals with the oral admission related to the contents of a document; where it pertains to the relevancy of the oral evidence regarding the terms of the contract, grant, or other disposition of property. 

Section 114 (E) of the act grants the court the authority to make certain presumptions based on the common course of natural events, human behavior, and the regularities observed in public and private affairs. 

(ii)    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – 

Section 313 of CrPC is to afford the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. It provides the accused with a chance to respond to the accusations made during the trial. 

In India right to remain silent is a significant fundamental legal safeguard, and this right is often associated with the broader concept of the privilege against self-incrimination, which is a cornerstone of criminal justice systems in many countries, including other common law countries. 

The right to remain silent is typically rooted in the principle that no person should be compelled to be a witness against themselves. It allows individuals, especially those accused of a crime, to refrain from answering questions that may incriminate them. This right is enshrined in various legal system and is often protected by constitutional provisions or statutory laws. 

The main objective of the provisions is to protect individuals from being coerced or pressured into making self-incriminating statements. This protection helps ensure that statements made are voluntary and not a result of duress. Thereby allowing individuals to remain silent will help main the fairness of legal proceedings, and prevent the authorities from extracting confessions through tactics that might infringe upon an individual’s right.

Granting the right to remain silent recognizes the autonomy of individuals and their right to make choices in legal situations. This includes the decisions to speak or remain silent during interrogations or court proceedings, thus proving an instrument in preventing forced or compelled confessions which would violate an individual’s rights and compromise the reliability of the legal process. 

In essence it serves as a check on the power dynamics between the state and the individual, ensuring a more balanced and just legal system. 

• CASE LAWS PERTAINING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SILENCE AS ADMISSION – 

(A)    One of the Landmark cases that addresses the issue of silence amount to admission in the Indian context is Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, 1978 SCC (2) 424, in this instance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India acknowledged the right to silence but also considered the various circumstances under which the silence could be interpreted adversely. The court observed that while an accused has the right to remain silent, if he fails to give a plausible explanation for his silence when confronted with evidence, it may be taken into consideration in the overall evaluation of guilt. 

Furthermore, the Apex Court in the present instance also states if an accused maintains silence or refuses to answer questions about incriminating circumstances when given an opportunity, the court may draw an adverse inference against him. However, the court emphasized that the adverse inference should not be the sole basis for conviction and other relevant evidences must be considered collectively. 

(B)    In another notable case of State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh Udaisinh Jadeja, 1997 6 SCC 514, where the Supreme Court clarified that while an accused person has the right to remain silent during police interrogations, if he later relies on a defense that he did not have the opportunity to explain certain circumstances, the court can take his initial silence into account.

(C)    Similarly in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu, 2000 6 SCC 269, is a notable decision by the Supreme Court of India where it delves into the implications of silence during police interrogation. 

The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant (Damu) silence during the police interrogation could be construed as an admission of guilt. The Apex Court, in its decision emphasized the importance of the right to silence as a constitutional safeguard. However, the Court also clarified that the silence of an accused person when confronted with incriminating evidence during police questioning, could be considered as a circumstance against them. 

The Apex Court highlighted that the prosecution has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is under no obligation to prove their innocence, this very judgement underscores the delicate balance between the right to silence and the permissible inference that can be drawn from police interrogation to draw specific answers from questions posed before him. 

(D)    In the case of Oscar Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, in this instance where the High Court of Karnataka, has observed that when the accused remains silent during the trial and examination u/s. 313 of CrPC. It can be construed by the Court that the accused had sufficient time and opportunity to deny any alleged evidence against him during investigation. 

(E)    Subsequently, in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620, The Supreme Court in this instance has held that when the accused person remains silent during the conduct of the trial and at later stage does not offer any further explanation for the charges meted out against him, then the Court will assume it to an implied admission of guilt. 

• JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION – 

The above case laws and legal provisions underscores the nuanced stance that Indian Judiciary has adopted over the concerns of silence as a tacit form of admission, within the realm of criminal proceedings. Here the accused is afforded a pivotal opportunity to elucidate or reject the allegations so made against them. However, the Indian judiciary has provided guidance on the interpretation of silence as admission through carious judgements. One landmark case being Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor (1947), where the privy council observed that an admission, if voluntary and direct, is a powerful form of evidence, but cautioned against inferring admissions from silence without proper examination of all the circumstances. 

However, it remains imperative to meticulously scrutinize the distinctive circumstances of each case and adhere to the fundamental principles of natural justice, this approach has been essential to guarantee a judicious and equitable evaluation of silence as a potential admission, acknowledging the inherent complexities inherent in its interpretation. 

Similarly, in the case State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 493 1961 SCR (2) 371, the Supreme Court of India held that silence could only amount to an admission in circumstances that called for an answer or a denial. The Court further emphasized that silence cannot always be equated with guilt and that each case must be assessed on it own merits. 

• Constitutional Safeguard – 

Lastly, in the Indian legal realm the entitlement of an accused individuals to maintain silence stands as a cornerstone within the Indian Legal Framework, representing a fundamental principle meticulously upheld to foster equitable and unbiased legal proceedings. The constitutional protection encapsulated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, extends the right to remain silent across various legal proceedings, stating that “No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. In essence, this constitutional provision established a robust safeguard, barring any compulsion on the accused to furnish evidence that might incriminate themselves or testify in a manner adverse to their interests. 

The constitutional protection encapsulated in the right to remain silent extends across various stages of legal proceedings, encompassing interrogations, court hearing, and investigate processes. At its core, this right serves as a formidable bulwark against self-incrimination, endowing the accused with the discretion to judiciously decide whether to respond to queries. The sanctity of the legal process hinges on the preservation of this right, as it acts as a potent deterrent against coercive methods that might extract involuntary admission of guilt. 

CONCLUSION – 

Silence in the legal realm, can be a double-edged sword, while it can serve as a shield, protecting one’s right against self-incrimination, it can also act as a sword, cutting against the silent individual when interpreted as an admission. The Indian Evidence Act provides a nuanced approach to silence, recognizing that not all silences are equal and that the context and circumstances surrounding a person’s silence are critical to its interpretation. 

In conclusion, while silence may sometimes amount to admission under the Indian Evidence Act, it is not a simple rule of thumb. The Courts in India approach the issue with care and caution considering the complexity of human behavior and the specifics of each case. Silence, therefore, must be understood not just as the absence of words, but as a potential carrier of meaning, replete with legal implications that can replicate the profound ways justice could be served.