Narco analysis indian evidence act

This article is written by Diprava Ghosh, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT: –

The usefulness of the narco-analysis test as evidence plays a crucial role in the criminal investigative process. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is entirely blank regarding the use of such scientific methodology in the Narco-Analysis Test. There has been much discussion about the use of narco-analysis tests during interrogations in India. The judge is not an expert in every field, particularly where the subject matter calls for technical expertise, and the Indian Law of Evidence permits a witness to disclose the facts but not his inference, and experts are permitted to provide opinion evidence. The police should be motivated to uphold the law by Foreign sic scientists use of rational scientific procedures.

KEYWORDS: – Narco-Analysis Test, Investigative, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Technical expertise.

INTRODUCTION: –

The term “narco-analysis” is a combination of the words “narco” and “analysis,” which refer to psychoanalysis performed by administering medications to induce a state that is somewhat similar to sleep.

In order to extract information from a person’s subconscious mind, a chemical test is performed on the suspect while he is hypnotized into a state that resembles sleep but in which he is actually awake. After administering sodium pentothal or sodium amytal (drugs), the person enters a condition of hypnotism or partial unconsciousness. Questions prepared for the purpose are then frequently aimed at the person while they are in this state.

The procedure is referred to as a “narco-analysis test.” The medications are commonly known as “truth serum,” but the degree of veracity to one of these scientific investigative methods is narco-analysis, in which the accused is asked to make a statement that may be supported by evidence. The evidence act makes no mention of applying the scientific methods in this manner. Such a procedure has repeatedly garnered criticism for violating the ideals of the constitution, but it has also been justified as required to analyse some difficult matters. There are several questions about the dependability of narco- analysis as a scientific method of investigating and its legal admissibility.

1872 Indian Evidence Act: –

HISTORY OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872: Prior to this, the rules of evidence were based on the local and traditional legal systems of various socioeconomic groups in India.

Evidence is defined as follows in Section 3 of the Evidence Act of 1872: “Evidence” means and includes (1) all statements that the Court permits or requires witnesses to make in front of it regarding the issues being investigated; such statements are referred to as oral evidence; and (2) all statements, including electronic records produced for the Court’s inspection; such statements are referred to as documentary evidence.

It is uncertain whether any responses from the Narco Analysis P 300 Test will be considered evidence or not. Such responses or statements might not become evidence unless they pass other requirements. To be clear, if the Court has permitted or required any declaration, it does not become admissible in the case. If the accused’s confession was coerced into making it (even when they were in a hypnotic state of mind), the court should disregard it. Thus, the primary concern is whether it can be used as a scientific technique in investigations and, ultimately, whether it can be used as forensic evidence in court. 9 Section 2410 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 prohibits the admission of confessions obtained through coercion, intimidation, or promise in the case of Narc-analysis the person undergoing, the test has no control over his thinking, and the subject is forced to answer question against his will, and such confession padre are inadmissible in court, according to section 24 of the stated Indian Evidence Act. In the presence of the doctors, the subject undergoing narco – analysis testing is interrogated by investigating agencies or police, and the full confessional statement is subject to section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Law of Evidence allows a person who is witness to state the facts but not his inference and expert is permit to give opinion evidence and the judge is not expert in all fields especially where subject matter involves technical knowledge. He is not capable of drawing inferences from the fact which is highly technical. In these circumstances he needs the help of an expert who is supposed to have superior knowledge or experience in relation to subject matter. Regardless of our legal system, the most pressing question that today’s jurists, judges, scientists, lawyers, and academicians debate the most is how to change the current value-based system of justice in order to use the advantages of contemporary scientific advancements and technological in the administration of justice. According to our analysis, the “right against self-incrimination” is violated by the impugned techniques’ mandatory administration. This is so that the dependability and voluntariness of claims that are admitted as evidence are guaranteed by the aforementioned right, which is its fundamental justification. This Court has acknowledged that, when read in conjunction with Section 161(2) of the Code, the protective reach of Article 20(3) extends to the investigating stage in criminal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1973; it safeguards suspects, witnesses, and those who are interrogated during an investigation. If the test findings were obtained under duress, they cannot be entered into evidence. The decision to speak or remain silent is protected by Article 20(3) regardless of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be collator or exonerating.

It is argued that the impugner’s results are not totally dependable and that their scientific validity has been called into question. For instance, in the narco-analysis method, sodium pentothal is administered intravenously. This substance decreases the subject’s inhibitions, therefore the revelations that are prompted need not always be real. Inferences are made using these procedures, which are fundamentally confirmatory in nature and rely on the subject’s physiological reactions. The validity of scientific evidence has a causal relationship with numerous aspects of the right to a fair trial in the context of criminal cases, such as the necessary threshold for demonstrating guilt beyond.

DNA TESTING: when DNA profiles from questioned and known samples are available, a report will specify one of three possible outcomes: inclusion, exclusion or inconclusive. Inclusion or a match means that the same genotypes can be found on the peaks of the two short tandem repeat profiles and that the technical differences between the profile can be explained.

DNA testing is most important things in forensics science.

CASE LAWS: –

  1. According to Nisha v. State of Orissa16, Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution prohibits the hiding of the facts only because the accuser provides the information. It simply shields him from being forced to testify against himself. Therefore, assuming that information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is coerced testimony is incorrect. In this regard, it should be noted that the Supreme Court’s Lordship took into account the evidence about the discovery of a fact at the accused’s request even though this topic was not brought before them in the form in which it has been discussed here.
  2. In Amin v. The State21 Article 20(3) applies to discoveries under Section 27, Evidence Act, if these discoveries are the results of compulsion. The scope of Section 27 Evidence Act is thus restricted by Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the discoveries which follow a confession brought about by compelling an accused person cannot be used against him.
  3. The Supreme Court construed the phrase “to be a witness” quite broadly in the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra22, including oral, documentary, and testimonial evidence. The prosecution under Article 20(3) includes not only coerced testimony given in court, but also coerced testimony collected by any coercive procedure for the production of documents reasonably likely to support the prosecution against him. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872’s notion that a person can be a “witness” not only by delivering spoken evidence but also by producing papers or making understandable gestures, as in the instance of a dumb witness, or similar, was recognized by the court. If the Court’s reading of the words “to be witness” in M.P. Sharma’s case is correct.
  4. The court in Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police25 is of the opinion that today’s criminals have started using very sophisticated and contemporary techniques to perpetrate crimes. Therefore, the traditional approach of investigating and interviewing criminals will not be effective for finding a solution, necessitating the use of fresh methods like polygraphs, brain mapping, and narco-analysis. The court further stated that it was not possible to claim that the investigating authorities had infringed any Indian citizen’s fundamental human rights when such tactics were utilized in the presence of experts.

Conclusion: –

Narco-analysis plays a crucial part in criminal investigations due to its strong probative value. Without the accused’s consent, the narco-analysis test should not be performed, and if the court orders the test, it is obvious that the accused did not consent to it because no one is allowed to defy a court order. The Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act, as well as numerous other local and special legislation, as well as the provisions of the Constitution, place limitations on the use of police power and its breadth. Law is a living process that evolves in accordance with society, science, ethics, and other factors.

REFERENCE: –

  1. https://bnwjournal.com/2020/10/12/impact-of-forensic-science-and-evidentiary-value-of-narco-and-dna-test/
  2. https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/106.-Sidharth-Kumar-Pathak.pdf
  3. https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2019/IJRSS_MAY2019/55-Evidentiary%20Value%20of%20Narco-Analysis%20Test-indu-May19rss-AMIT.pdf