• Polygraph, Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping

Please advise through previous SC Judgement about admissibility of information/evidence collected through procedures such as Polygraph, Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping. Also please advise if consent of the person who is made to go through these procedures is rquired or not.
Asked 4 years ago in Criminal Law
Religion: Hindu

2 answers received in 10 minutes.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

10 Answers

Hello,

Selvi v. State of Kerala is the landmark judgment in this regards. Note that the test can not be taken without the consent and if the consent is not given by the person concerned then adverser opinion can be rendered and if the narco-analysis is taken then the same has to be corroborated by other evidences.

Any admission during such test has to be corroborated and are not treated as direct evidence on which conviction can be made.

Regards

Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
17940 Answers
377 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Hi

Yes the information attained via these processes is admissible.

Consent of person is required to go through these all tests.

Thank You

Rahul Jatain
Advocate, Rohtak
5365 Answers
4 Consultations

4.8 on 5.0

The DDT can not be administered without the consent of the accused The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Smt Selvi and others state of Karnataka criminal appeal number 1267 of 2004 , that DDT what the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases is in the violation of fundamental rights half self incrimination on the article 20(3) of the constitution which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself /herself.

The article 21 has been Judicially expended to include right against cruel inhuman and degrading treatment.

These tests also Rises concern to the professional ethics of medical professionals Indore green the administration of these techniques and violation of human rights of an individual.

Vimlesh Prasad Mishra
Advocate, Lucknow
6848 Answers
23 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Selvi vs State Of Karnataka

In a major blow to investigating agencies, the Supreme Court held the use of narco analysis, brain-mapping and polygraph tests on accused, suspects and witnesses without their consent as unconstitutional and violation of the ‘right to privacy'.

Supreme Court says: “We hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty.”

So in light of above judgement the consent is mustfor admission of evidences.

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
25516 Answers
179 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The said tests are inadmissible in law. As no person can be witness against its own self. The said tests are only facilitating in Investigation and can't be admitted as evidence.

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
27261 Answers
88 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

Narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests cannot be conducted on any person without their consent as per judgment of supreme-Court in 2010

Swarnarka Chowdhury
Advocate, Mysore
1878 Answers
5 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The Supreme Court judgmentrelated to the involuntary administration of DDT for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases was questioned on the account of violation of fundamental rights such as:

(i)

‘Right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself, and

(ii)

Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) has been judicially expanded to include a ‘right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’.

2) The Supreme Court judgment on involuntary DDTs is that it has no place in the judicial process. On the contrary, it will disrupt proceedings, cause delays, and lead to numerous complications which will result in no greater degree of certainty in the process than that which already exist

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
87932 Answers
6207 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

In a landmark judgment the Madras High Court conveyed that investigating agency is required to complete investigation within a reasonable time, if not, the benefit of delay is given to the accused. If accused fails to co-operate with the investigation process undertaken during custodial interrogation, to unravel the mystery surrounding the crime, scientific investigation methods may have to be carried out to find the truth.

Keeping the same spirit in another judgment, the court had held that the narco-analysis test is a step in aid of investigation. It forms an important base for further investigation as it may lead to collection of further evidences. Therefore, with reference to the proliferation of crimes against society, it is necessary to keep in mind the necessity of the society at large and the need of a thorough and proper investigation as against individual rights while ensuring that constitutional rights are not infringed. Consequently, in the court's opinion, the narco-analysis test does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity as it is a step in aid of investigation and any self incriminatory statement, if made by the accused, cannot be used or relied upon by the prosecution. The court ordered the accused to undergo the narco-analysis test in stipulated period5. These judgments were clearly supporting the use of DDTs in investigations.

The deception detection tests (DDT) such as polygraph, narco-analysis and brain-mapping have important clinical, scientific, ethical and legal implications. The DDTs are useful to know the concealed information related to crime. This information, which is known only to self, is sometimes crucial for criminal investigation. The DDTs have been used widely by the investigating agencies.

The Supreme Court judgment3 on May 5, 2010 related to the involuntary administration of DDT for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases was questioned on the account of violation of fundamental rights such as:

(i) ‘Right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself, and

(ii) Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) has been judicially expanded to include a ‘right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’.

Concerns regarding human rights violations in conducting DDTs were raised long back and the National Human Rights Commission had published Guidelines in 2000 for the Administration of Polygraph tests. However, only few of the investigating agencies seen to follow these guidelines.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
78089 Answers
1543 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

In one case decided by the SC in 2010, compulsory administration of such techniques infringes the right against self-incrimination. Considering the protective scope of Art.20(3) read with S.161(2) Cr. an accused, suspect or witnesses who are examined during investigtion. The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion

Rajaganapathy Ganesan
Advocate, Chennai
2085 Answers
8 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

The deception detection tests such as polygraph, Narco-Analysis and brain-mapping are useful to know the concealed information related to crime and used by the investigating agencies.

Consent is necessary for going through these procedures.

Further, any admission during such test has to be corroborated and are not treated as direct evidence .

The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Smt. Selvi and others , State of Karnataka (criminal appeal number 1267 of 2004) , that DDT . HELD - that the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases is in the violation of fundamental rights half self incrimination on the article 20(3) of the constitution which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself /herself.

Further, Supreme Court held that these procedure has no place in the judicial process. On the contrary, it will disrupt proceedings, cause delays, and lead to numerous complications which will result in no greater degree of certainty in the process than that which already exist.

Mohammed Shahzad
Advocate, Delhi
9895 Answers
121 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer