THE VALIDITY AND IMPACT OF ‘NARCO ANALYSIS’ IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
THE VALIDITY AND IMPACT OF ‘NARCO ANALYSIS’ IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTRODUCTION
While seeking truth in criminal inquiries, law enforcement agencies often turn to scientific techniques beyond conventional interrogation methods. One such controversial and scientifically debated tool is narco analysis. Narco analysis stands at the crossroads of science, law and ethics. In India, this debate has intensified following its use in high-profile cases like the Nithari killings, the Aarushi Talwar case, and the Mumbai terror attacks. While proponents argue it can be a useful aid in complex cases involving terrorism, murder, or organized crime, critics raise serious concerns about its reliability, ethical implications, and compatibility with constitutional rights. This blog explores the evolving role of narco analysis in India’s criminal justice system, its scientific validity, legal standing, and the critical questions it raises about justice, consent, and due process.
WHAT IS NARCO ANALYSIS?
Narco analysis involves administering a “truth serum,” commonly sodium pentothal (Thiopental sodium) or Scopolamine, which induces a sedated, hypnotic state. Under this influence, subjects are believed to lower their inhibitions, making them more likely to reveal suppressed or concealed information.
Procedure: Conducted by a team of forensic psychologists, anesthetists, and police officials. The dosage depends on the subject’s age, sex, health, and physical condition, administered by an anesthesiologist in the presence of a forensic psychologist, psychiatrist, and supporting staff. The procedure is recorded via audio-video for documentation. Questions are carefully framed to elicit specific responses, as the subject’s imagination is believed to be neutralized, reducing their ability to lie.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The term ‘Narco Analysis’ was introduced by Dr. Robert House in 1922, who experimented with Scopolamine in prisoners. By the 1930s, barbiturates were employed in psychotherapy, and their use extended to criminal investigations by the late 20th century. In India, narco analysis has been used extensively since the early 2000s.
LEGAL STATUS AND ADMISSIBILITY IN INDIA
The use of narco analysis in India has been challenged on constitutional grounds, for violating:
Article 20(3): The right against self-incrimination, which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves.
Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy, which narco analysis is believed to infringe by accessing the privacy of the mind.
NARCO ANALYSIS AND BNSS
Section 329 of BNSS is directly related to scientific evidence. It deals with reports of certain government scientific experts. Specifically, it allows for the admissibility of reports from these experts as evidence in legal proceedings.
Section 51(1) of BNSS allows for a medical examination of an arrested person when there are reasonable grounds to believe it will provide evidence related to the offense for which they were arrested. This examination can be conducted by a registered medical practitioner, or someone acting under their direction, to ascertain facts that may be relevant to the case.
Hence, due to these provisions Narco analysis and several other scientific procedures are recognised as mode of evidence.
NARCO ANALYSIS AND BSA
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam does not explicitly mention about the admissibility of evidence obtained through Narco Analysis. Although, there are some provisions which indirectly indicate the position of this law on Narco Analysis.
According to Section 23(2) of BSA, Any confession made by an accused person while in the custody of a police officer cannot be used as evidence against them.
However, the facts disclosed by accused while in police custody can be considered by court under proviso of Section 23 of BSA which states that if an accused provides information to the police that leads to the finding of a relevant fact, that information can be used as evidence, provided it is directly linked to the discovered fact.
Sec 22(1) of BSA states that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant if the court believes it was caused by an inducement, threat, coercion, or promise related to the charge, made by a person in authority, and that would lead the accused to reasonably believe they could gain an advantage or avoid harm in the case.
A comprehensive reading of these sections implies that information obtained through narco analysis is admissible in court only when it is obtained by consent of the person. Otherwise, Narco Analysis results are treated as investigative tools, not as evidence.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Various judicial precedents has shaped the admissibility of Narco Analysis evidence:
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that self-incrimination involves conveying personal knowledge, not merely mechanical processes, providing a basis for allowing narco analysis with consent.
In this landmark judgement, the court held that narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests without consent are unconstitutional. They cannot be forced on anybody as it amounts to self – incrimination which violates the Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. Even if it is voluntarily done, it is not admissible in court. It can only be used to collect further evidence.
Ramchandra Reddy and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the legality of narco analysis, arguing it aids investigations without amounting to testimonial compulsion.
Despite these rulings, the admissibility of Narco analysis results remains limited. Courts evaluate the circumstances under which the test was conducted, ensuring no coercion or duress was involved.
USE OF NARCO ANALYSIS IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES IN INDIA
The narco analysis has been used in various cases in India, like, Nithari killings, Arushi Talwar murder case, 2008 Mumbai attacks etc. The accused in the Nithari case had revealed the identities of other victims he had killed before this case. However, the findings were not recognised as evidence in court, they helped the police in their investigation process.
The use of these tests has often led to public outcry over ethical and humanitarian issues.
ETHICAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERS
Violation of bodily autonomy: Drug administration without consent amounts to assault.
Mental trauma and long-term effects: Potential psychiatric implications for the subject.
Coercion risk: Subjects may be psychologically pressured into giving consent.
Medical Ethics: The involvement of medical professionals in narco analysis raises concerns about their role in potentially coercive procedures.
Physical problems: The administration of barbiturates carries health risks, including the possibility of coma or death if dosages are miscalculated. Psychiatrists are advised against performing narco analysis for investigative purposes due to ethical conflicts.
LIMITATIONS AND RISKS
Unreliable Evidence: Statements made under narco influence are not voluntary, and may be inaccurate, exaggerated, or false.
Lack of scientific validity: There is no scientific certainty that a person under narco-analysis will only speak the truth. The subject may hallucinate, fantasize, or mix facts with fiction.
Potential for misuse: There is a risk of coercion, manipulation or forced confessions by authorities. It can be used to justify custodial tortures or intimidate suspects
Confession not guaranteed: Some individuals may resist the drug or provide irrelevant or misleading information. The results require expert interpretation which can be subjective.
WAY FORWARD
Stricter Regulation: Any use of these tests must be regulated by a strict legal framework ensuring consent, transparency, and ethical oversight.
Focus on Forensic Evidence: Scientific, DNA-based, and digital forensics provide far more reliable and rights-respecting investigative tools.
Judicial Training and Sensitization: Judges must be trained not to rely on or be influenced by unscientific test outcomes.
Public Awareness: The myth of narco and polygraph as “truth machines” must be dispelled through legal literacy and media ethics.
CONCLUSION
Narco analysis continues to spark debate over its scientific legitimacy, legal acceptability, and ethical implications. While it can assist investigators by providing new leads or confirming doubts, it cannot replace traditional investigative processes nor be considered a reliable or fair method for extracting confessions. A balanced approach, emphasizing scientific validation, ethical oversight, and alternative forensic methods, is essential to ensure that narco analysis aligns with the principles of a fair and equitable criminal justice system.
Closing Credit
Author- VISHAKHA SARASWAT
"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"
Comments
Post a Comment