Introduction:
Generally, during an investigation of an offence or crime, questioning of those suspected to be involved assumes a crucial role in finding the truth surrounding the events of the offence. Since the advent of time, numerous means of doing this were derived from some sort of torture to extract data from the suspects. As scientific and technological advancements came into the picture, more refined techniques of detecting lies were created that do render the option of torture as completely unnecessary. Some of the systematic instruments of questioning are the lie-detection/polygraph test, the mapping of the brain test and the test of Narco-Analysis, also referred to as the truth serum test. These psychiatric methods are likewise employed to examine the criminal’s behaviour and verify the inferences of the officer who is overseeing the investigation.[1]
Scope
The general purpose of this article is to establish an overview of India’s legal stance on the use of Narco-analysis as a method of extracting truth from suspects and whether it violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The article delves into peripheral facets of the same by studying the historical emergence of the technique of narco-analysis and the procedures involved in conducting or carrying it out. The paper concludes on how Narco-analysis is a sophisticated tool which in the right hands, can bring accurate results and how it does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
History
The word “narco-analysis” originates from the language, Greek in which the term “narke” means anaesthesia and is employed to profile a psychoanalytical method involving the use of psychotropic pills. The term “narco-analysis” was initially coined by Horseley. In the early 18th century, narco-analysis tests became the norm after a Texan obstetrician, Robert House, subjected two convicts to the drug scopolamine.[2]
Within the same period, House also observed that women to whom the aforesaid drug was given to ease the labour, became more compliant and chattier. He opted to use it on convicts and went about interrogating them in order to establish whether they were innocent or guilty. Influenced by this, though later abjured, House claimed and advocates its routine use in matter of police investigations.[3]
Procedural Aspects
In India, there are forensic science laboratories located in Karnataka and where narco-analysis is exercised by inoculating a minuscule amount (in grams) of thiopental sodium mixed in 0.3 litres of refined water and this composed liquid is inserted in an endovenous method coupled with D-glucose for at least three hours by the expertise of an anaesthetist. Narco-analysis infiltrates the body gradually. The mode of injecting is highly regulated to lead the accused into a hypnotizing experience. The electrocardiography and blood pressure are examined consistently at all times of the process. The findings uncovered throughout the narco-analysis are recorded both in video and audio format.
The interrogation is devised with care and is pushed forth adamantly to break past the wall of ambiguity put up by the suspect. The inference arrived at by the authorities significantly helps in collecting the requisite proof. An individual is capable of lying by forcing his imagination into believing it. In the narco-analysis test, as the suspect goes into a stage drifting from consciousness and unconsciousness, it proves to be nearly impossible for him to churn by falsities and his responses are limited to realities he knows about. The courts permitting and suspect obliging consent are compulsory for carrying the test. The procedure is explained to the accused. The test is conducted solely when forensic and medical experts are present.[4]
Present Scenario
Presently, narco-analysis as proof or evidence is not admissible in the courts of India, yet they are still being conducted by the investigating agencies. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[5] is reflective of the reasoning that if the suspect’s testimony is pillared by the unravelling of a material fact, the statement given may only be assumed to be true, and not that it has been forcefully withdrawn. This comes onto the surface only at a time when particular facts are asserted as a result of data extracted from a suspected individual kept in custody; if the data is remotely regarding a material fact uncovered. If the information provided by the suspected individual is such that it incriminates himself and carries no threat of admissibility in evidence, then it shall not be faced against Article 20(3).
The term “Investigation” has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[6] as all the cases under the Code for the purpose of collecting proof as carried by a police officer or by any authority except a Magistrate, who is entitled by one in that regard. Therefore, the collection of evidence by a police officer is permitted in the eyes of law.
Narco-analysis regarding Article 20(3)
Questions with regard to law are often brought forth when talking about the validity of narco-analysis tests. While some affirm its validity regarding lawful principles, others deem it to allegedly be in contravention of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. That being said, given today’s rapidly rising crime rate, these tests generally assist the agencies who are investigating and thus, it is imperative to understand narco-analysis in light of Article 20(3).[7]
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution provides “that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The three elements of this arrangement mandate that it is a right regarding the accused, that it is a safeguard from being coerced into being a witness or furnishing evidence against oneself.
If any of the above is not fulfilled then Article 20(3) cannot be applied. If narco-analysis is exercised on a suspect, the question remains whether it satisfies the first component of Article 20(3).
In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Apex Court ruled that incriminating one-self should refer to providing data based upon the personal knowledge of the individual giving the information and must not cater for merely the technical procedure of furnishing records before court that might shed clarity on any of the points in contention, but which don’t contain any testimony of the suspect depending on his knowledge.[8]
In Kalawati v H.P. State, the Apex Court observed that Article 20(3) does not apply to a situation where the confession is rendered by a suspect under no duress, threat or agreement.[9]
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. Inapuri Padma, the court ordered some accused people to have a narco-analysis test conducted on them and ruled that the issue of exercising the test of testimonial duress in case of accused subjects does not arise.
In Smt. Selvi and Ors v. State by Koramangala Police Station, the court ruled that plenty of safeguards are there which the accused can resort to if the investigation agencies wish to bring forth the data or testimony obtained by narco-analysis into evidence, given the same is found inculpative.[10]
Conclusion
On the off chance that an individual is being deemed as a suspect carrying information relevant to a criminal event, there ought to be no restriction on exercising a narco-analysis test on him/her because the safeguards provided under Article 20(3) are accessible solely to one who has been accused of a crime. Further, Article 20(3) mandates that there must be no duress on the arrested person to record any statement against himself.
In the case of straightforward interrogation, wherein a voluntary testimony is given, which might be incriminatory in nature, then the same cannot be considered as compulsion. Whether a testimony is incriminatory or not can be determined solely once the test is carried out and not before. By conducting narco-analysis, the investigating authorities gain more chances to get crucial inputs that will aid them accordingly find out the actual perpetrator. If during the process, the suspect gives an incriminatory testimony and it faces a problem of admissibility in being contradictory to Article 20(3), then the rest of the statement can certainly be taken into consideration by the investigation authorities to solve the case. Therefore, a narco-analysis test can be carried out without apprehending the possibility of it violating Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
References:
[1] Satyedra K. Kaul and Mohd. H. Zaidi, Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Lie Detector Tests in Interrogation of Suspects, 1st Edn (2008) Pg. 531.
[2] Anonymous, What is Narco-Analysis Test that the Kathua Rape Case accused are asking for? INDIA TODAY (Apr., 2018) https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/what-is-the-narco-analysis-test-that-the-kathua-rape-case-accused-are-asking-for-1213937-2018-04-17.
[3] Vaughan Bell, A brief history of Narco-analysis, MIND HACKS (Mar., 2013) https://mindhacks.com/2013/03/16/a-brief-history-of-narcoanalysis/.
[4] Ratanlal Ranchhoddas and Dhirajlal Keshavlala, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Edn (2006) Pg. 438.
[5] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Act No. 1 of 1872, § 27.
[6] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Act No. 2 of 1974, § 2(h).
[7] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 20(3).
[8] 1961 AIR 1808 1962 SCR (3) 10.
[9] 1953 AIR 131 1953 SCR 546.
[10] 2004 (7) KarLJ 501.
%20of%20The%20Indian%20Constitution){kind=link}
0 Comments