Pre- Trial Procedure In order to fecilitate the collection of evidence the investigating officer has been given power to examine orally any person or accused to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.[ Sec. 161(1)] Such a person is required to answer truly all questions relating to the case. However, he is not bound to answers to which would have tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. [Sec-161(2)] If a person being legally bound to answers truly all questions relating to such case even in (i) Investigation as well as in (ii) trial stage, he is liable to be punished under section 193 IPC ( for false evidence). Note- The Punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 7 year and fine also. Case Law In the decision of the Supreme court in Nandini Satpathi v.p.l. Dani (AIR 1978, 2S.C.C. 424), it has been held that any person supposed to be acquainted with the (i) facts and (ii) circumstances of the case includes on accused person. The accused person does fill the role of such person because the police Suppose him to have committed the crime and mus, therefore, be familiar with the case moreover, questing a suspect in desirable for defenction of crime and even for the protection of the accused person. Article 20(3) of the constitution clearly provides as a fundamental principle that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In this connection the Supreme Court has held the area covered by Article 20(3) and section 161(2) is substantlly the same and section 161(2) of the CRPC is a “ Parliamentary glass “( Brightness/ shining) of the Constitutional clause” (Nandini Satpathi” V.P.I. Dani (1978). In Nandini Satpathi case the Supreme Court has expensively and deeply considered the parameter of 161(2) of the CRPC and the scope and of Article 20(3) of the constitution and concluded as follows”. “We hold the section 161 enables the police and examining the accused during the investigation. The Prohibitive point of Artice 20(3) goes back to the stage of police inferrogation not, as contended commencing is the Court. In our judgement the provision the of Art. 20(3) and Saction 161(2) substantlly cover the area. The ban on (i) Self- accusation and the (ii) right to silence, insists voluntary disclosure of criminatory matter. Undue pressure Violation Article 20(3).” Gist of the matter Either in the matter of ivenstigation or at trial stage, it is the direction to the police and prosecu for that they follow the true meaning of Article-20 Protection in respect of Conviction for offence_ Article 20(3) speaks that -“ No person accused of any offence shall be compellete to the witness against himself. “It means even in interrogation or trial stage the authorities ( police and Prosecutor) should not apply Compelled testimony” as- 1. Psychic torture 2. Physical torture 3. Atmospheric pressure 4. Environmental Coercion 5. Tirring interrogation And other “third degree measure are not ( Like tone and tension of command) to apply. This is the direction of the Supreme Court to concerning authority while using the rights of questioning from the accused to know whether he is guilty or not guilty.