Introduction:
Narco analysis has recently become a more concerning subject in India. Since time immemorial, various techniques have been used to retrieve information from the accused. The findings of criminal investigations are no longer ignored, thanks to the invention of modern analytical interrogation techniques. In the course of a criminal investigation, interrogation of the accused is crucial. Lie detectors, also known as polygraph tests, brain mapping, and Narco analysis tests, are three popular methods for extracting admissions from suspects that could be used as evidence. The term "Narco-analysis" was first coined by Horsley. Narco analysis raises a myriad of questions at the intersection of law, science, and ethics, with some defending it on legal grounds and others criticizing it as a serious violation of constitutional provisions. The most critical is that the Narco analysis procedure infringes the right to self-incrimination immunity provided by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Despite the fact that this tactic has been around since World War II, there isn't enough research to back it up. Only a few democratic countries, notably India, continue to conduct narco-research. Narcotics testing are not freely permitted for investigative purposes in most developed and/or democratic countries. In a slew of high-profile cases, including the Nithari killers and the Mumbai train bombings, suspects have been whisked away to undergo an interview drugged with the barbiturate sodium pentothal.
WHAT IS NARCO ANALYSIS TESTS ?
The term narcoanalysis comes from the Greek word “narkc”, which means anesthesia or torpor. Narco-analysis is a diagnostic and psychotherapeutic technique that involves the use of psychotropic drugs, especially barbiturates, to induce a state of sedation in which mental elements with strong associated effects rise to the surface and can be manipulated by the therapist. This test involves injecting a substance into the subject's body, such as sodium pentothal, scopolamine, or sodium amytal, which causes them to go through various stages of anesthesia. In the hypnotic state, the subject becomes less cautious and is more likely to reveal information that would usually be kept secret in the conscious state. All of the subject's fantasies, personal wishes, intuition, beliefs, illusions, conflicts, misinterpretations, and urges can be shown. The incorrect dose may send the subject into a coma or even cause death. To gradually induce hypnosis in the accused, the rate of administration is monitored. The bio-molecules have an effect on an individual's bio-activity because the drug depresses the central nervous system, reduces blood pressure, and slows the heart rate, bringing the person into a hypnotic trance with a lack of inhibition.
PROCEDURE OF NARCOANALYSIS TESTS:
Narco Analysis is conducted by injecting 3 grams of sodium pentothal dissolved in 300 ml of distilled water and administering this formulated solution intravenously along with dextrose over a 3-hour period with the help of an anesthetist at Forensic Science Laboratories. This examination involves an invasion on the subject's body, which drives it slowly into a hypnotic trance. The ECG and blood pressure are continuously tracked during the procedure. The discoveries made during the hypnotic trance are recorded on video and audio cassettes. To clear up any ambiguities that might occur during drum interrogation, the questions are carefully formulated and asked repeatedly. Then the reports are prepared by the experts which might serve as evidence. The subject enters into a "twilight" stage in the Narco Analysis Test, which is a state halfway between consciousness and unconsciousness.3 In this condition, he will find it difficult to lie, and his answers will be confined to what he already knows. Prior to the test, the court's approval and the written consent of the subject are obtained, all of which are required for the test to be conducted. The Narco analysis test is performed by an anesthesiologist, a psychiatrist, a clinical/forensic psychologist, an audio-videographer, and supporting nursing personnel. The forensic psychologist will write a report on the revelations, which will be accompanied by an audio-video compact disc. If necessary, the person is subjected to polygraph and brain mapping tests to better assess the intensity of the revelations.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF NARCO ANALYSIS TESTS:
RIGHT TO SELF INCRIMINATION
According to the constitution, admissions made by a semi-conscious person are not admissible in court, so these assessments are normally invalid. The court may grant restricted admissibility after examining the circumstances under which the test was obtained. In one of the cases, the petitioners argued that forcing the prosecutor to perform narcotics testing, brain mapping, or lie detector tests against the accused's will would be a breach of the Constitution's Article 20(3). The most critical provision concerning criminal prosecution and trial is Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It's about the right to be free of self incrimination. A basic canon of Common law criminal jurisprudence is the right against self-incrimination. According to article 20(3), “No person convicted of any crime shall be obliged to be a witness against himself.”
The next move is to discuss Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. This provision may be stated to consist of the following three components:
1. It is a legal right of a person accused of committing a crime.
2. It is a safeguard against being compelled to testify.
3. It is a safeguard against such coercion leading him to testify against himself.
The use of the narco analysis test poses a critical concern regarding judicial matters as well as Human Rights. It also violates the maxim Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare, which states that "no one, not even the accused himself, can be compelled to answer any question which may tend to prove him guilty of a crime for which he has been accused”.
In addition, Article 20 (3) protects against being compelled to testify. An eleven-judge Supreme Court bench in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad held that it must be shown that the accused must be compelled to make a statement that is likely to incriminate him. The threat, beating, or imprisonment of a person's wife, parent, or infant is referred to as compulsion. As a consequence, art 20(3) does not apply if the accused makes a confession without being threatened. As a result, the right against self-incrimination provides for the preservation of human privacy while also allowing for the implementation of civilized criminal justice principles.
Article 20 (3) also prohibits the accused from being forced to testify against himself. In Kalawati v H.P. State, the Supreme Court held that Article 20 (3) does not apply to a confession made by an accused without any inducement, coercion, or assurance. The legality of using this approach as an investigative tool raises significant questions about a person's right to liberty, equality, and privacy.
Narco-analysis subjects the accused to third-degree torture, including injections and a variety of painful stimuli such as slapping, pinching, dragging, kicking, and shaking the body in order to awaken the victim from a hypnotic state and enable them to answer questions. The individual is also subjected to mental assault as a result of the injection's effect on his or her mind's ability to access the most private parts of his mind. The word "injury" is described in Sections 44, 323, 324, and 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the punishment for it is up to ten years in prison. As a consequence, giving someone a narcotic drug is the same as injuring them. Therefore these tests not only violate the rights against self incrimination but also the accused is subjected to go through mental and physical assault and thus violates the right to life under Article 21.
The Supreme Court reasoned in M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra that since Article 20(3) includes the terms "to be a witness" rather than "to appear as a witness," the defense applies to forced evidence gathered outside the Courtroom. The same point was made in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case. The word "Right to Privacy" is a catch-all phrase that refers to a broad variety of rights that have been accepted as inherent in the principle of ordered liberty.
According to the decision in Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani, no one can physically obtain answers from the accused, who has the right to remain silent during interrogation. She argued that Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 161 (2) of the Cr. P.C. gave her the right to remain silent. The administration of these tests nullifies the legitimacy and dignity of the Right to Silence by forcible entry into one's mind.
Moreover, according to studies conducted by various medical associations in the United States8, truth serums do not induce truthful statements and the person in such a state of trance can offer false or misleading answers.
NARCO-ANALYSIS : ADMISSIBILITY IN LAW:
Narco-analysis was first used in India in the Godhra carnage case in 2002. It was also in the headlines after the notorious Arun Bhatt kidnapping case in Gujarat, in which the accused was subjected to undergo narco-analysis before the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court of India. It was once again in the headlines when Abdul Karim Telgi was put to the test in December 2003 as part of the Telgi stamp paper scam. While an enormous amount of information was collected in the case of Telgi, questions were posed about its importance as evidence. The notorious Nithari village (Noida) serial killings thrust narco-analysis into the spotlight. Mohinder Singh Pandher and Surendra Kohli, the two prime suspects in the Nithari serial killings, have undergone narco-analysis tests in Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
The Bombay High Court upheld the legality of the use of P300 or Brain Mapping and narco analysis tests in the case of Ramchandra Reddy and Others v State of Maharashtra. Proof obtained by the use of a narcoanalysis test is also admissible, according to the court. However, defence attorneys and human rights activists viewed the narcoanalysis test as a primitive method of examination and third-degree treatment, and there were legal lapses in drug-assisted interrogation.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in Selvi v. State of Karnataka that using narcotics analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests on accused, suspects, and witnesses without their consent was unethical and a breach of their "right to privacy."
“We hold that no individual should be forcefully subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise,” said a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal in a 251-page judgement. This will be an unjustified attack on one's personal liberty.
CONCLUSION:
Law is a dynamic process that evolves in response to changes in culture, research, ethics, and other factors. Science-related inventions and advancements should be incorporated into the legal system as long as they do not contradict basic legal standards and are beneficial to the society.
In India, the use of the Narco Analysis Test as a method of interrogation has been hotly debated. The degree to which it is recognized in our legal system and culture will become clearer in the not-too-distant future. Individual liberty and equality are valued in today's criminal justice system, and in this sense, offenders are unable to escape safe passage due to flaws in the system that result in dilution of proof. The probability of justice has diminished after the Apex court quashed the validity of the test and admissibility of Narco-analysis, taking into account the circumstances in which it was obtained. But there is still a big question mark on the validity of narco tests. The Narco test can be said to be unethical, when everything in investigating fails. Every person is innocent until proven guilty, and the same aspect should be maintained while carrying out any criminal investigation. . In light of the fact that narcoanalysis is gaining judicial recognition and support despite being an ineffective and questionable science, we must seriously reconsider it’s legal and constitutional validity from a human rights standpoint.
.jpeg)
