Difference between Article 20 (3) and Section 132 of the Evidence Act are given below:
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution says: ”No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The object of Article 20 (3) is to give protection to the accused from being compelled to give evidence against him. Therefore, it is the fundamental right of an accused that he shall not be compelled to be a witness and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The words of Article 20 (3) themselves show that the protection afforded is intended in criminal cases, that too particularly to an accused only. This Article does not extend to any witness. This Article also does not extend to civil proceedings.
The object and purpose of Section 132, Evidence Act, are quite different from Article 20 (3). Section 132 is not a privilege given to a witness, but an encumbrance upon him.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
Any witness, whether in civil or in criminal proceedings, should give answers and evidence in an appropriate manner suitable to maintain the dignity of the Court, Court officers, advocates, and parties.
He shall not give answer to any criminate question. Moreover, he cannot refuse to answer a question which is relevant to the matter under enquiry in which he is called as a witness even on the plea of self-incrimination.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It does not mean that he must give answers to all criminatory questions, but he should give answers to the matters relevant to the matter-in-issue. It means a witness is privileged and need not give answer to irrelevant questions.