Why Is Narco Analysis Not Admissible in Court

Why Is Narco Analysis Not Admissible in Court

Article 161 § 2 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: “Everyone is obliged to answer honestly all questions put to him by a police officer, except for questions the answer of which would result in criminal prosecution, punishment or confiscation”, seeks protection against contested techniques such as narcoanalysis, The polygraph, brain mapping, constitutes mental torture and violates the right to privacy. Last but not least, an act of silence on the issue of permission to conduct such a test does not constitute voluntary consent under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Narco-analysis has been criticized on the grounds that it is not 100% accurate. It was found that some subjects made completely false statements. It often fails to get the truth, as such it should not be used to compare the statement made to the police before drug use. It was found that a person who gave incorrect information even after administration of the drug. This is not of much help in the case of simulators or evasive and false people.9 It is very difficult to suggest a correct dose of the drug for a particular person. The dose of the drug differs depending on the will, mental attitude and physique of the subject. A successful narco-analysis test does not depend on the injection. Its success requires a competent and qualified interviewer who is trained to ask timely and successful questions. The narco-analysis test is a restoration of memory that the suspect had forgotten. This test result may be questionable if the test is used for the purpose of confessing to crimes.

Persons suspected of having committed crimes may intentionally conceal information or give false reports about the incident under the influence of drugs.10 Drug analysis is not recommended as an aid to criminal investigations. In medical applications such as the treatment of psychiatric disorders, narco-analysis can be useful. Unless the test is done with the suspect`s consent, it should not be used in criminal investigations. Like confessions, narco-analysis tests generally have no legal validity because they are done by a semi-conscious person and are not admissible in court. However, the court may, after considering the circumstances in which the test was obtained, grant limited admissibility. Narco-analysis, brain mapping and lie detector tests against the will of the accused would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The most important provision of the Constitution of India concerning the investigation of criminal offences and judicial proceedings is paragraph 3 of Article 20. It is the privilege of not incriminating oneself. The privilege not to “incriminate oneself” is a fundamental canon of common law criminal jurisprudence. Art. Article 20, paragraph 3, which enshrines this privilege, provides: “No one charged with a criminal offence shall be compelled to testify against himself.” Subjecting the accused to this test, as the investigating authorities in India have done, is considered by many to be a flagrant violation of article 20 (3) of the Constitution.

The right to forced self-incrimination, widely known as the right to remain silent, is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution of India. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislator protected civil law against self-incrimination. Article 161, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that every person “is obliged to answer honestly all questions put to him by a police officer, except for questions the answer of which would result in him being exposed to criminal prosecution, punishment or confiscation”. Narco-analysis is said to constitute psychological torture and therefore violates the right to life guaranteed by Article 21, since it is the right to privacy. Again, the law against invasion of privacy of individuals would not allow proof of fingerprinting of the brain to be provided in court. Among those who moved the Apex court were Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja, accused of being an organized crime leader in Gujarat, film producer K. Venkateswara Rao, accused of fraudulent Dilip Kamat stamp fraud. Although narco-analysis provided an immense amount of information, it also raised many questions, as many critics shared a deep skepticism about administering serum to the witness to extract the truth.

Narco-analysis is considered a tool or aid in the collection and support of evidence. However, it is questionable whether this is a compellement to testify before the judiciary and a violation of human rights, individual liberty and liberty. Lawyers are divided on whether the results of the narco-analysis and P300 tests are admissible as evidence in court, as they argue that a semi-conscious person`s confession is not admissible in court. A narcoanalysis test report has some validity, but is not fully admissible in a court, which examines the circumstances in which it was obtained and assesses its eligibility. The results of these tests may be used to obtain admissible evidence, may be cooperated with other evidence, or to support other evidence. However, if the result of this test is not admitted to court, it cannot be used to support other evidence obtained during the routine examination. The Centre, through G.E. Vahanvati, then attorney general and now attorney general, had backed the tests and told the Supreme Court that the investigating authorities had a legal mandate to conduct them. The results provided clues and had no probative value, Vahanvati said.

In Rojo George v. As Deputy Superintendent of Police,[7] the Kerala High Court has allowed drug testing in the opinion that criminals today use sophisticated and modern techniques to commit crimes; Thus, traditional and conventional interrogation methods are proving futile. Therefore, it is necessary to replace these methods with modern techniques such as third-degree methods, which can be considered effective. Dushyant Dave, amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case, said: “This is a landmark judgment and the first instance in the world where the country`s Supreme Court has declared these tests inadmissible. The verdict is particularly important because police and prosecutors are determined to restrict the area of constitutional rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Prosecutors and police have used such tests, and various courts across the country have issued conflicting decisions about their validity. A Delhi court that ordered a drug test for Aftab Amin Poonawala in the Shradha Walchar murder case has highlighted the use of specialized investigations as an advanced interrogation tool. According to experts, during the narco-test, the person`s inhibitions are reduced by interventions in his nervous system at the molecular level. In such a state of sleep, efforts are made to get the truth from the evidence about the crime. The dose of the injected substance is determined based on the sex, age, health and physical condition of the person. The current criminal justice system without the aid of these scientific techniques is weak and therefore leads to acquittals in many cases. Since the validity of the test and the admissibility of the drug analysis were struck down by the Supreme Court, given the circumstances in which it was obtained, the possibility of justice has weakened.

One way forward in this whole case is that these techniques can be selectively allowed in serious crimes if other evidence is insufficient. This step will result in a qualitative change in criminal justice. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the same aspect must be observed when conducting a criminal investigation. The central debate stemming from DDT is its legitimacy to use inhumane degrading methods to confess to the crime. The questioning of the accused plays a decisive role in the preservation of evidence. If the accused remains silent and does not answer questions from the investigating authorities, to what extent can the investigating authorities compel or compel the accused to disclose information? In a civilized world, police torture to obtain information about the crime is unacceptable. Even in court, a confession made to a police officer is not valid. Now the question is: “Can the police use DDT to extract information from the accused”? Many support the view that such tests often help investigative authorities in times of ever-increasing crime, but others dismiss them as a flagrant violation of constitutional provisions. This view examines the views of the previous court, the recent Supreme Court decision, and the scientific basis for DDT.

Narco-analysis is a term often heard in the news, especially when it relates to crime and criminal proceedings. It is important to understand what narco-analysis test is and its legality in India for UPSC exam. In this article, you can read all about narco analysis test. Lately, narco-analysis has been the most discussed topic among the legal brotherhood, the media and the grassroots. Narco-analysis test, the development of new investigative tools has led to the emergence of scientific interrogation tools. With the recent emergence of technology in all areas of life, criminal investigations are no longer excluded from their implications. Narco-analysis is one of those scientific forms of investigation in which one obtains a type of testimony from the accused that could constitute evidence. The law of evidence is completely silent on such an application of scientific processes. Such a process has often been criticized as a violation of constitutional principles and, on the other hand, seen as a need to assess certain complex issues.