.

.
!~ 1. NARC0-ANALYSis9 1J~ s dt,CA!J ,.,,__ <j?:,_-,;.f,,,.. •
cho the rap eut ic p,o ced ure in wh ich
[:Definition~ It is a dia g~o sti~ , and psl
d to ind uce a sleep like state, and
psy cho tro pic dru gs (<Jarb1turates) are use
s que ries to obt ain information from
the n the per son is sub jec ted to var iou
from the Greek word 'na'.rki;' meaning
hi~ Th e ter m narco-analysis is derived · .
'an est hes ia'.
the
bas ed on the principle tha t, und er
~ Principle: Na rco -an aly sis tes t is
is in sem i-co nsc iou s sta te,
✓influence of psychotropic dru gs, wh en the per son h sleep-like sta te of
n is blocked. In suc .
his abi lity to lie by usi ng -his imaginatio
.
,
impossible for him to lie. ' His answers
min d, rit bec om es difficult tho ugh not •
are of, and he is una ble to ma nip ula te
are res tric ted to the facts tha t he is aw
the ans we rs. •
• Procedure:
-1- cO
U\- LV '"~ ~ ,,-IV ve..
,.Jc>
"'- .
nto n~ -sodium (known as 'tru th serwn
1
../' - Dru gs like ~od ium am yta l@ thi ope
wh ich ind uce s a tra nce -lik e sta te. The
are slowly adm ini ste red int rav eno usl y
rvous _system, lower~ blood press_ure
effect of dr\.lgs dep res ses the ·ce ntr al n·e
jec t int o a hyp not ic sta te.
and slo ws the hea rt rat e, put tin g the sub
ns by the inv est iga tin g age nci es in the
.-
• •• The sub jec t is the n ask ed que stio
.,,,,, pre sen ce of the doc tor s .
are recorded bot h in video and audio
. 1'he sta tem ent s ma de dur ing this sta ge
the exp ert s is use d in the pro ces s of
v- ,~a sse ttes . Th e ~eport pre par ed by
col lec ting evidence.
I
.j
 •• . .~ -•• . , ...!: •• ~,,•:-•;~... ..-i:;
" '•t'i .... ,. '..I
'"'~,;;.-r.a
-~_ Jiffl'';r;~'.•. !;':~·-
·- - ··~...- •.;;•l;l.~~-~)~'i;•~~·
.. • \''Ji!'-.• • ·•~:J,..·~···1 ,1,,,.~~·-!-,,~-···~..,,~i:'. ,.,t•,,.i~•.l:"'./ .:·w;'t-a
:~···..-'1,'r-,;•}~•- ~ ',·,_~m~'
~ -
•-,~·:
t~ .
~-~:;";,..~- r • ' ':'I>
~
,~•• .,
.• ~
~,... \ u
. ;..\, ... • ·,
...
, .. :f;'~.f'~· ·:\, ·,~_ ;' .y.':~3··1··· ,_ ,>.;~::¥tli!f
:.-.,: 1'~1V~~1
'f;:"'lJ.!Ul~ ~•l'1.>t;,:~.~J'':~: Jv.a.iettiJ.
~~:..!-•·.c,.•~f."t1~
.J.~......: ....~....~,,.:-f"...',"•~lt,·,1..,,..c:r~r.,.. r~ ~ ..... .,.... •
. '.~~~Rt'i Mi!±~~-\
.i'tJ'il,\C'.Y•~- -'',._~, • f(~~·fi.f~
• l~W~~jW\~ ~-- •J: '' """' :(
iill: , u~w ... mPnt hosp itals -afte r a_ c9~!t or~ is
.. - ,• . -
. •

- This· procedure is cond ucte d in govern , . . ..

. duct the test.
pass ed 1nstr ucf1ng the doct ors or hosp ital autho r1t1e s to con
.
- Cons ent of the subj ect is requ ired to perfo rm the test. •
-
1} Le al valid ity of Narc o-An alys is Test • -
J1 . g . . .
Lt!rco-a nalys is tesc. r..as pose d serio
• .
us
ques tions relat ed to its sc1ent1fic
• . . 1 1
a1· b·1· ~ violation of hum an right s agai nst self- incri mina
re ia i i~ ~ - - - - - - t10n . and ~ts. egl:!,_
•
.d ·ty Scientifically the narc o-an alysi s .test 1s
yalI .l_. '
not cons1•dere d very reliable as
it is not 100% accu rate. Stud ies have show n that, h • drug c used
the psyc . otro~ ic ~ -
durin g the test do not indu ce truth ful state men ts and subj
ects in such sleep -
like state may give false or misl eadi ng answ ers.
Legal -vali dity of narc o-~a lysis test in the cour~ as
.
evid en~e invo lves ~the
following three fund ame ntal ques~1on . . tJo .f~o ~ oc~ H:> t9.l... C>J,.A._,
s. SV\G...Lt Re L O ~ d l ~ ~ 9 e___
i. Whe ther Narc o-an alysi s viola tes the privilege
agru nst self- 1ncn rmna t1on
guar ante ed unde r Article 20(3) of tt1e Con stitu tion of Indi
a?
ii. Whe ther Narc o-an alysi s can be acce pted scien tifica lly relia ble test? as
111. Whe ther narc o-an alysi s can be
acce pted as legal ly valid ~y the Indi an
Cour ts?
~

The right agai nst force d self-incrimination~ is ensh rine d

in the Code of Crim inal
Proc edur e and the Indi an Cons titut ion. A.rt. 20(3 ) state
s that , "No pers on
accu sed of any offence shall be comp elled to be a witn
ess again ·st hims elf".
Appl ying Narc o-an alysi s test as an inve stiga tive aid is· cons
idere d- by man y as -·~
viola tion of A1ticle 20(3) of the Con sti~t ion. • It also goes
agai nst the max im
'Nem o Teneta_r se Ipsu m Accu sare ', whic h mea ns
that, 'No man , not even the
accu sed hims elf can b~ comp elled to answ er an~ ques tion;
whic h may tend to
prov e him guilt y o~ a crim e, he h_as been accu sed or.
Sec. 161 (2) of Cr PC
state s that: "Every pers on .is boun d to ~sw er truth fully
all ques tion s, put to
him _by a police officer, othe r than ques tions t~e answ ers
to whic h, wou ld have
a tend ency to expo se that pers on to a crim inal char ge, pena
lty or forfe iture ".
Sect ion 45 of the Indi an Evid ence Act, 1872 does allow
expe rt's opin io.ns in
cert ~n case s. It read~: ~When the cot1rt has to form an
opin ion upo n a poin t of
foreign law, or of scien ce, ~r art, or as to iden tity of
. . th . . hand writ ing or rm
1mp~ess1on, e op1n1~ns upon that poin t or pers ons espe ger
cially skilled in such
foreign law, or of scien ce, or art, or as to iden tity· of
. . ha d ·t·
1mpress1ons are relev ant. ,, Expe rt evid . . n wn 1ng or fi1nger
• . ence is appr ec • t d b d
facto rs such . as the skill of the expe rt and the exac t a e f hase . on seve ral
1

scien• • lf • • • • . ness
ce 1tse 1s 1mprec1se , expe rt opin ion r· O t e scien ce If the
· rn · • is onl . •
insu ic1ent to secu re a conv ictio n by itself. • However Y O corr obor ative valu e and
th1·s
o th er aspe cts _o f ioren
" sic evide nce that can b . d. . , . secti on is silen t on
proc eedin gs. e a miss !ble in cour t in crim inal
 . .
(2J Admisstbtltty of Narco-Analy~s Test in the Court
•. The scier_tif1c tests that i0:volve mal<ing of a statem ent may be direct
. .
ly
r adduc ed in evi~ence, provided they are merel y-adm ission s,
and do not amou nt
a
"' to a cc-nfession bec.aus~ proof of a· confession before police officer or in
police
~ust ody is prohibited .. Alternatively, the statements may be used as proof
of
sEecific knowledge of th\ accuse_d relate d to those facts, infcr~ ation about
which resulted in ~ubse quent discoveries durin g the investigation. Lastly,-
statem ents may be u~ed merely as clues for the investigation, and • -the
are ryot
adduc ed at all in evidence. Admissions nevertheless, are caugh t by the gener
al
. rule statin g that no statem ent m~de in cours e of an investigation, even if
. reduced to writing·, is.to be signed by the ·maker. Further, even if the statem ent
.v ~ s oral, and the factlim of its -being made to a police officer is prove
d, it canno t
~-r
0
~~ rsed as evide~ce. . • _ •
~ ~er the Indian Evidence Act, there are two. situat ions in which c~nfesajons
to ·police are admit ted in evidence: (i} the statem ent is made in the immediate
.::::;, presen ce of a Magi strate ,@(ii ) the statem ent leads to the discovery
of a fact
connected with the crime. The discr ery assur es the truth of the statem ent
and make s it reliable. . .
. .
• ~1any tirrles, a s~tem ent made _during nar~o-aoaly~is is offered in evidence,
by
a~~':1cing i_t alon si a disco rn&de ursua nt to the statem ent. Section 27
of the .IEA ~lows dducmg____~t ements made ·to police officers if :they .are
-~ppo rtetl by subse que~t discoveries. Ho~ever, 8: r~covery under S~ction- 27 of
' The IEA will not be admissible if compulsion has been used in obtaining_th
information leading to it. If the statem ents made under_narco-analysis test are
e
sough t to be adduced in evidence, th~re is a possibility .of exclus ion of the
. n~~o-analysis t~st if_ the eleme,nt of compulsion .. unde~ .tµe test Ji.as been
I recogmze·ci r R ~ • ~ ::. f.v,4f-11l<:..(:- ~e"t" CA.i ~ ~ at. e l l - ~
. • r~u. .tt- ~ ~~~ •
• In 200~ the Bombay Hig~ Court ruled in the fake -:!~mp paper scam
case
that subj~cting an accus ed to certain- tests like iiarco analys is does_ not violate
~ the fundamental right again st self-in crim~ ation. Stat~m ents
made unde~
n¥co-ar_alysis are not admis sible in evidence .• Howey~r, rso~e ries result ing
tr':)m Such drugg ed interviews are adm_issible as corrobo~ative evi?e?ce. _,
r
• In Ramc handr a R~dd y and Ors. v State of Ma1ia rashtr a (2004
1 All MR (C~)
1704), ~omb ay High Co~rL ~phel d the l~alit y of the use of ~300 or Brain
e
d
fi1nger_pnn
.· ti.
ng, 1·1e -de.tector test and the use . of narco-. analys1s.allTh~• court
~Pfieid. a spe'cial court order given by the special court m Pune, owing t,h e
n • d • th fak t oaoer scam
SIT to condu ct scientific tests on the accuse - in_~_,h-~ e s a7pthe J·udgm~nt
ll -- .
[ includ ing the main accu~ed , Ab<lui Kanm Telgi • In.-
t e course .o
.
_, - ,
-~p e~ f>~e-$~~~ ~ • •
 t
a distincti on was drawn between "stateme nt" (made before a police officer) and
"testimony" (made under oath in court). ~he Court further st~ted that, lie-
detector and brain mapping tests did not involve any "stateme nt" being rr.lade '!
and the ~tatemen~ made under narco analysis was not_ adrnissibi~ ~n eviden~e"
~ during tnal: The Judgem ent al,so held that these tes~s involve "m1n1mal bodily .. :
,. ~"- • r~~ -fgri~~ c,~tlM Mt-~~ii.ce
~ •In Selvl v State of Kamat aka (2010) 7 sec 263, the ~reme Court
l""'llllla~ rejected the High Court's _relianc~ on the. \ltility,__reliability and validity of •
ruµco-analysis and other tests as methods of criminal investigation. The Court
found that forcin a sub'ect to under o narco-an al sis, brain=-ma in or
polygraph tests itself amount ed to th ~equisite compulsio regardless of t~e
lack of physical harm done to adminis ter the test or the nature of the answers
given during the tests.' Since the answer·s given during the adminis tration of
the test are not consciou sly and voluntarily giv$n, and since an individual
•
• I
9:oes not have the ability to decide whether or not to answer a given questi9n,
the result all three tests amount to the re uisite com elled testimo o
violat Article 2 The Suprem e Court found::- that narco-an alysis •olate ~
indivirff'tii!""""~nght to privacy @)am0 unte0. to. cruel, inhum~ or degrad ing~
treatmen t. Article 21 protects· the right to life and persona l libe:ty, which has
been broadly interpre ted to includ_~ . various ~ubstan tive .. due process
.protections, includin g the right to privacy and t.he right to be free from torture
and cruel, inhuma n, or egrading treatmen t. •wever ~ any information· or
material that is subsequ ently iscovered it • elp of untary
I

test re can be mitted. 1 ccyance . ~ ti . 27/l

re e C r A t o t o 1b 1t fi r a 1;)-gsse

a olunt cimini t ed tes i.e. scover ith t e he of

~,~·ned fro uch a test can b~ ad 1tted as e ·dence. tf\.P ,' d.f"-/r ~
• The la~, on the status of scientific tests for evidentiary purpose~ still is n,ot
absolutely clear. The issue of usini oarco-an alysis test as a tool •of
interrogation in India has been widely debated . Narco-analysis test report has
some validity but is not totally admissib le in court, which consider s ~he
circumstan~~~- under- which it was obtained..., Despite being an unreliable &
doubtful, narco-analysiS has received judicial accep ~ in many cases.
r s~ r;}ya.f&-- ~ ~ G - 70. -
~ BRAIN MAPPING /tf 50 (ftJi.ft> . r;-osp · _ · ·
77r
Dt-- IffH, t~,
fJ ·•
• Definition: Brain mapping is an investigativ~· technique ~sed to determine if
specific information regardin g the criminal act js present in the brain of
..,,,.. ..
Bro1-. 8W"¥f'cPD (?cdl r a.R'ev i = ~"' ,~ 7/f! • R,,oft• lf