Explained | Shraddha Walker Case: Narco-Analysis Test And Legal Position

Aaftab Amin Poonawala, who is accused of the gruesome murder of his live-in partner Shraddha Walker, was taken to a hospital in Delhi's Rohini on Thursday for a narco-analysis test. The scientific technique is used to elicit concealed information from an accused in a criminal case for furtherance of investigation. But what are the implications of such investigative tools in criminal cases? Does it violate a person's right against self incrimination under Article 20(3)? Narco AnalysisAccording to a research paper available on National Library Of Medicine, the test involves intravenous administration of drugs that cause the person to enter into various stages of anaesthesia. It is stated that since the subject becomes less inhibited due to use of drugs, he is more likely to divulge information in response to the questions of the investigator. However, the results of such a technique vary from subject to subject. The Narco test has always been a subject of legal and ethical debate that whether it violates the fundamental rights of a subject and to what extent the extracted information can be used during trial against the accused. In many cases the accused themselves have sought the narco test to prove their innocence.Involuntary Narco Analysis Offends Right Against Self-Incrimination The legal question regarding the use of scientific techniques like narco analysis and polygraph examination was discussed extensively by the Supreme Court in a judgement delivered in 2010. The court in the ruling made it clear that the test results of such techniques cannot be admitted as evidence. In Smt. Selvi & Ors versus State Of Karnataka, the bench headed by then CJI K.G. Balakrishnan said a subject of narco-analysis test is "encouraged to speak in a drug-induced state" and that there is no reason why such an act should be treated any differently from the verbal answers given during ordinary interrogationThe court in the ruling said if admission of involuntary statement is permitted on the ground that at the time of asking a question it is not known whether the answer will be inculpatory or exculpatory, the 'right against self-incrimination' will be rendered meaningless. "The law confers on 'any person' who is examined during an investigation, an effective choice between speaking and remaining silent. This implies that it is for the person being examined to decide whether the answer to a particular question will eventually prove to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Furthermore, it is also likely that the information or materials collected at an earlier stage of investigation can prove to be inculpatory in due course." The court had also said that provisions under CrPC which allow medical examination of an accused for the purposes of investigation do "not enumerate certain other forms of medical examination that involve testimonial acts, such as psychiatric examination among others". Thus, it had rejected the argument that 'and such other tests' in Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the CrPC should also include narco analysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test."Our conclusion is that the results obtained through the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests (i.e. the narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test) come within the scope of 'testimonial compulsion', thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3)," the court had ruled.The court had also expressed concern over public distribution of the narco-analysis interview, saying such actions can expose the subject to undue social stigma and specific risk. "It may even encourage acts of vigilantism in addition to a 'trial by media'," the bench had observed.It was also held in the judgement that subjecting a person to the techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy. Forcible interference with a person's mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the right against self-incrimination, according to the apex court.The court had also held that compulsory administration of the impugned techniques constitutes 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' in the context of Article 21.Voluntary Narco AnalysisHowever, the court in the ruling had said voluntary administration of the three techniques can be done provided that certain safeguards are in place. "Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test," the apex court held.However, it clarified that any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of "voluntary administered test results" can be admitted in evidence, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.Recent RulingsA 68-year-old man, an accused in a rape case, in 2021 approached the Kerala High ...

Explained | Shraddha Walker Case: Narco-Analysis Test And Legal Position

Sofi Ahsan

Tags