Judicial Trend: The Apex Court

Chapter 3:

Judicial Trend:

The Apex Court in various judgments have pondered upon the validity of using scientific method of narco-analysis in order to extract the information from the accused for either using it as an evidence against him or for the discovery of any substantial evidence supporting the case. Some of the most important judicial pronouncements held in the recent times following the year 2000 by the Honorable courts are discussed below.

In the judgment of Dinesh Dalmia v State given in the year 2006, the Madras High Court held that: “subjecting an accused to narco analysis is not tantamount to testimony by compulsion. The court said about the accused: "he may be taken to the laboratory for such tests against his will, but the

V. State of Maharashtra , held that use of scientific techniques such as brain mapping, Narco-analysis, lie detector test or the use of P300 is legal. The Bombay High Court in his judgment had upheld the order given by the special court allowing the Special investigation team to conduct the narco-analysis test of all the persons accused in the fake stamp paper case also including one of the main accused Abdul Karim Telgi. “The verdict also said that the evidence procured under the effect of truth serum is also admissible. In the course of the judgment, a distinction was drawn between “statement” (made before a police officer) and “testimony” (made under oath in court). The Judges, Justice Palshikar and Justice Kakade, said that the lie-detector and the brain mapping tests did not involve any “statement” being made and the statement made under narco analysis was not admissible in evidence during trial. The judgment also held that these tests involve ‘minimal bodily harm’.”

In the case of Mohinder Singh Pandher vs. CBI S.P.E, State of U.P. popularly known as the Nithari Killers Case or Noida Serial killing Case, the Court had allowed the narco-analysis of the main accused along with the other accused who were his associates as they were accused of chopping and then cooking the body of young children and then eating

State of Karnataka , it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the results of the test cannot be admitted as an evidence even though consented by the accused because there is no conscious control is being exercised by the subject during the course of test but the court left one option that if the subject consented for the test then any material or information discovered that can be admitted under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further it was also held that according to section 25 of Evidence Act “Confession made before any police officer are not admissible as evidence before the court.” Thus the court is of the view that the statements made by the subject during custody are not admissible as evidence unless same has to be cross examined or judicially scrutinized. The court further held that too much reliance on results gathered from such scientific tests may lead to the hampering of an accused’s right to fair trial. And though public interest is an important factor to be kept in mind while deciding the relevancy or validity of such scientific techniques, but it cannot violate the provisions given under the constitution protecting the accused from