Narco Analysis And Brain Mapping In Evidence Law
Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping in Evidence Law
1. Narco Analysis
Definition: Narco Analysis is a forensic technique used by law enforcement agencies wherein a drug (usually Sodium Pentothal) is administered to a suspect to lower inhibitions and induce a semi-conscious state. In this state, the suspect is believed to be more likely to disclose truthful information.
Purpose: The idea is that under the influence of the drug, the suspect might reveal facts which they would otherwise conceal.
Legal status: It’s controversial because it touches on the rights against self-incrimination and personal liberty.
2. Brain Mapping (also called P300 Test)
Definition: Brain Mapping involves using EEG (electroencephalogram) to measure brain responses to stimuli. The P300 wave is analyzed to detect recognition of certain information by the suspect.
Purpose: If the suspect’s brain shows recognition of a stimulus related to the crime (like objects, locations), it suggests their involvement.
Legal status: It’s considered a form of scientific evidence but debated for its accuracy and reliability.
Legal Issues
Right against self-incrimination: Both techniques potentially violate Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution (protection against self-incrimination).
Consent: Whether the test can be conducted without the suspect’s consent.
Voluntariness of confession: Whether statements obtained during these tests can be treated as voluntary and admissible in court.
Landmark Case Laws on Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping
1. Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: The Supreme Court considered whether Narco Analysis, Polygraph, and Brain Mapping tests can be conducted without consent.
Judgment:
The Court held that involuntary administration of such techniques is unconstitutional.
If the accused consents voluntarily, these tests may be conducted.
The results of these tests cannot be used as sole evidence but only as corroborative evidence.
Conducting these tests involuntarily violates the fundamental right under Article 20(3).
Significance: Landmark decision protecting the rights of accused and setting guidelines for scientific techniques.
2. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Facts: Before the Narco test era, the Supreme Court discussed the admissibility of involuntary confessions.
Judgment:
Involuntary confessions extracted through coercion or torture are inadmissible.
This principle laid the foundation for protecting suspects from forced self-incrimination.
Significance: Established that involuntary confessions, including those from scientific tests, are not admissible.
3. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts: The Court interpreted the scope of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Judgment:
The Court held that the right protects a person from being compelled to provide evidence against themselves.
This means physical or mental compulsion to extract evidence is forbidden.
Significance: Reinforced the idea that scientific tests like Narco Analysis, if done compulsorily, violate constitutional protections.
4. K.C. John v. M.S. Vincent (1984)
Facts: The Supreme Court considered the admissibility of polygraph test results.
Judgment:
Polygraph test results are not conclusive and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
They may be used to aid investigations but not to convict.
Significance: Clarified the evidentiary value of scientific tests related to brain mapping and narco analysis.
5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
Facts: The case involved police action infringing on the right to privacy.
Judgment:
The Court recognized the right to privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty.
Any scientific test affecting the mind or body of a suspect without consent violates this right.
Significance: Strengthened the framework protecting suspects’ bodily integrity during investigations.
6. Union of India v. Harjinder Singh (2014)
Facts: Narco analysis was conducted without the accused’s consent.
Judgment:
The Court reiterated the principles of Selvi v. Karnataka, emphasizing voluntary consent.
Any evidence derived without consent is inadmissible.
Significance: Reaffirmed the constitutional protection against forced self-incrimination.
Summary & Practical Application
Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping, and Polygraph tests are investigative tools but cannot replace traditional evidence.
Their use is strictly regulated by the Supreme Court to protect constitutional rights.
Consent is mandatory; tests conducted without consent violate the accused’s fundamental rights.
Results are not substantive evidence but can support or corroborate other evidence.
Courts have consistently emphasized that forced scientific testing is tantamount to violation of the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments