Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

anonymus (confidential)     18 October 2008

Art 20(3)

dear sirs,

The recent buz word in the area of investigation is "Narco Analysis test". Is it not violative of Art 20(3). Even if permitted how far the statements made in the semiconscious stage by the accused are admissible in evidence. The acussed is permitted to take a defence of intoxication under sec 85 when he is not able to judge or control his actions. If that is so, how can a statement made by him without his control and made involuntarily be admitted in evidence?

Another angle to look this is, it is normal to the persons intoxicated to claim credit of anything and to boast themselves and 'to show off that they r the boss'. Then he wolud not be willing to give the credit of the offence to anyone but would claim himself. How far is the statements so recorded reliable even for the investigation.

Note: the western countries ,especially US, have stopped this method as it is proved to be unreliable. would welcome valuabe discussions.



Learning

 7 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     20 October 2008

I dont know what others will say on this issue, but yes, Mr. mehbub, you have raised a very important issues. I have very deep doubts regarding the use of such admission by the accused even including lie detector. But the opinion of the Trial judge must outweight such evidence and the Trial Judge must not act upon such admission blindly as binding on the court.

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     20 October 2008

If the statements made during narco analysis help the police to further investigate and then if the investigation comes out with some of the other facts which incriminmate the accused, then what?




 






 




 


It would be very intresting to see the use of narco on politicians in sensitive matters like Bofors etc., My thinking is once the politicians are started to be exposed to narco test , they will manage to declare such tests as unconstitutional.




 






 




 


A Simple application in the court in which the case is pending ' requesting  narco test on the politicians/persons' in respect of a sensitive issue. JUST SEE HOW THEY RUN IN COURTS TO GET THE ORDER QUASHED.




 


Problem is that it is only the investigating agency [ controlled by the STATE]  has  a right to ask the questions. Know what i mean? If the right questions are not asked , then what to do?

anonymus (confidential)     20 October 2008

yes Mr. rajan, u r absolutely correct. The questions r prepared by the investigating agency. and we know how they will prepare the questions. Further art 20(3) clearly says that the accused shall not be compelled to incriminate himself. If not to get incriminating facts, then what for the police want to give narco test? ONLY TO GET FACT TO BE USED AGAINST HIM.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     20 October 2008

Now again, if the circumstantial evidence surrounding the case is contrary to the statements coming out from the mouth of the accused in the state of hypnotism then WHAT?

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     20 October 2008

Tell you what - police will say to the accused  ' mai tume chudata hai ' - of course in return for.......

anonymus (confidential)     21 October 2008

Dear Rajan, ie., the case. The accused must take the test voluntarily. and it means that he must say for eg." I wish to take a lie detection test b'coz I want to clear my name." But if the police say "If u want to clear ur name, take a lie detection test" or "take lie detection test and we'll let u go" then the test goes. It cannot be said to be voluntary. pls refer to NHRC guidelines for liedetection tests. This equally applies to Narco test also.

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     21 October 2008

That is why in my bail applications also I take the stand ' The Applicant states that he is falsely implicated and is innocent. He has no confessions to make nor is in a position to help the police recover anything remotely conecting with the crime' . In this way even if something is recovered from him , it is involuntary and hence hit by Art 20(3). I am yet to challenge the recovery on these grounds in appeal against conviction,  but it would be interesting to see how the matter turns up. Any way SC has stated that even recovery is a weak piece of evidence as nothing stops the police from changing an ordinary discovery into recovery at the instance of the accused. 


Investigation can be attacked on the ground that what could have been earlier discovered by proper investigation is later on turned into a recovery. 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register