With reference to the protection of persons being tried for offences under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements is not correct?

Introduction / Context:
Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides important safeguards to persons accused of offences. These include protection against ex post facto laws, protection against double jeopardy, and protection against self incrimination. Examination questions on Article 20 often ask candidates to identify which statements correctly reflect these protections and which statements misunderstand them. In this question, three statements are faithful to the constitutional guarantees, while one misstates the law regarding confessions and evidence.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The question is specifically about protection of individuals being tried for offences under Article 20.
• Four statements are provided about law in force at the time of the act, double jeopardy, quantum of punishment, and use of confessions.
• We must find the one statement that is not correct.
• Knowledge of basic criminal procedure and constitutional safeguards is required.

Concept / Approach:
Article 20 has three main clauses. One clause forbids conviction for an act that was not an offence when it was committed and forbids imposing a higher penalty than what existed at that time. Another clause provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. A third clause protects against being compelled to be a witness against oneself. None of these provisions say that a confession can never be used as evidence; rather, they focus on compulsion and retrospective criminalisation. Confessions that are voluntary and recorded under proper procedure can be used in evidence subject to the law of evidence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine statement about violation of a law that was in force when the act was committed. This reflects the idea that a person cannot be convicted under an ex post facto criminal law, which is consistent with Article 20. Step 2: Examine the statement about not being tried and punished more than once for the same offence. This is the protection against double jeopardy and is clearly part of Article 20. Step 3: Examine the statement about quantum of punishment matching the law in force on the date of commission of the offence. Article 20 provides that a greater penalty than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time cannot be imposed, so this is correct. Step 4: Examine the statement that a confession can never be used as evidence against the accused. This is too broad and is not what Article 20 states. Article 20 protects against compulsion to self incriminate, not against all confessions. Step 5: Conclude that the statement about confessions is not correct, while the other three are consistent with constitutional safeguards. Step 6: Select the option containing the incorrect statement as the answer.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can cross check by recalling provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Voluntary confessions, especially those made before a magistrate or recorded according to procedure, can be admissible and often form an important part of evidence. What is barred is the use of confessions obtained by coercion, inducement, or compulsion, which would violate both the Evidence Act and Article 20. Thus, the law does not impose an absolute ban on confessions as evidence. In contrast, the provisions on ex post facto laws and double jeopardy are accurately reflected in the other statements, confirming that the first statement is the wrong one.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The options that restate principles on ex post facto punishment, double jeopardy, and prohibition on higher penalties faithfully reflect the content of Article 20. The statement on violation of an existing law captures the idea that a person cannot be punished for an act that was not an offence when done. The statement on not being tried and punished more than once for the same offence corresponds closely to the protection against double jeopardy. The statement on the quantum of punishment being in accordance with the law in force at the time of commission of the offence mirrors the bar on applying a heavier penalty retroactively. Therefore, they are correct statements and cannot be the answer to a question asking for the incorrect statement.

Common Pitfalls:
A common misunderstanding is to treat the protection against self incrimination as a complete ban on any confession being used in criminal trials. In reality, the Constitution and evidence law draw a line between compelled statements and voluntary admissions. Another pitfall is to overlook the word compelled in Article 20 and to assume that all statements by the accused are suspect. To avoid such errors, students should clearly separate the concepts of voluntariness of confession, admissibility of evidence, and the specific protections enumerated in Article 20.

Final Answer:
The incorrect statement is the one which claims that a confession can never be used as evidence against the accused, because Article 20 only protects against compelled self incrimination and does not ban all confessions.