4. NARCO ANALYSIS IN INDIA
Narco analysis/Narco interview for the
purpose of interview is conducted in a
Forensic Laboratory
In India, at Bangalore & Gujarat test is
conducted
Consent of Court is require
5. In veerappan case 2001
Nithari killers
Abdul Karim Telgi Case
Bhanwari Devi Case
The Mumbai train blasts,
Aarushi murder case
Malegaon blasts
6. PRINCIPLE
By using imagination a person is able to lie.
In this test, subject’s imagination is
neutralised by making him/her semi-
conscious.
In this state, it becomes difficult to lie and
answers would be restricted to facts he is
already aware of.
Efforts are made to obtain probative truth
about the crime
8. PROCEDURE OF NARCO-ANALYSIS
It includes following
Pre Test Interview
Pre-Narcotic State
Semi-Narcotic State
Post Test Interview
9. Pre Test Interview:
• Individual is explained regarding the whole
procedure and informed consent is taken
Pre Narcotic State:
• Anaesthetist induces narco and maintain
the pre-narcotic state throughout the
interview
• Drug is injected till the person appears
relaxed and in a state of good contact.
10. Drug and Dosage
5% Amytal (sodium amobarbitol)
5% Pentothal (thipentol sodium)
<1cc/min
150-350mg
75mg in organic brain disease
11. Semi Narcotic State:
After establishing the semi narcotic state
and the individual’s appears to be:
Flushed
Slowing and slurred speech
Nystagmus observing by testing examinee’s
eye muscle with finger
Forensic Psychologist or Psychiatrist
facilitate the interview
12. Individual is allowed to sleep off and
allowed to wake up on his/her off
Once s/he wake up, anaesthetist checks
him/her and allow to drink coffee or tea
Complete narco interview is audio-video
recoded and also written
13. Post Test Interview:
Memory is Checked
Individual is allowed to know what s/he has
spoken during interview
Individal experience more relax and anxiety
free state
14. Contraindication
Airway disease including URI
Severe renal / hepatic disease
History of porphyria
Hypotension
Barbiturate dependence
Psychosis - Rudolph Hess
15. Argument in Favouring
In the state induced by the drug, the
individual will reply to questions with
childlike simplicity and with childlike
honesty, without evasiveness, guile, deceit
or fraud, as the answer to a query that is
stored in his mind as memory.
“Dr. Robert Ernest House”
16. Dr. B.M. Mohan, asserts that the feedback
from investigating agencies indicate
towards a success rate of 96-97% in these
tests. These statistics, in favour of narco
analysis are an important consideration
while determining its feasability.
17. In United States v. Solomon there was a
detailed discussion on the topic of narco-
analysis.
In this case the expert opinion given to the
Court established that truth serum is
generally accepted as an investigative
technique. It need not be said that
prevention of crime and punishment for the
crime are the duties of the State.
Fetters on these duties can be put only in
extreme cases where the protection of
fundamental rights weigh more than the
fundamental duty cast on the State.
18. Moreover every person is required to
furnish information regarding offences.
Protection against self-incrimination was
instrument for the protection of the innocent
and not intended for the acquittal of the
guilty.
The framers of the Bill of Rights believed
the rights of society were paramount to the
rights of the criminal.
19. Argument Against
It is not hundred per cent accurate. It has
been found that certain subjects made
totally false statements.
It is often unsuccessful in eliciting truth as
such it should not be used to compare the
statement already given to the police before
use of drug.
It has been found that a person has given
false information even after administration
of drug.
20. It is not much help in case of malingers or
evasive, untruthful person.
It is very difficult to suggest a correct dose
of drug for a particular person.
The dose of drug will differ according to will
power, mental attitude and physique of the
subject.
Successful narco-analysis test is not
dependent on injection.
21. Situation in india
? Violation of Article 20(3).
No person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.
? Violation of Article 21.
No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law.
22. ? Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
Such person shall be bound to answer truly
all questions relating to such case put to
him by such officer, other than questions
the answers to which would have a
tendency to expose him to a criminal
charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
23. Landmark Judgement By SCI
Smt. Selvi & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka … Respondent
May 5, 2010
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI
R.V. RAVEENDRAN
J.M. PANCHAL
24. The Court found that forcing a subject to
undergo narco-analysis, brain-mapping, or
polygraph tests itself amounted to the
requisite compulsion, regardless of the lack
of physical harm done to administer the test
or the nature of the answers given during
the tests.
25. The Court found that since the answers
given during the administration of the test
are not consciously and voluntarily
given, and since an individual does not
have the ability to decide whether or not to
answer a given question, the results from
all three tests amount to the requisite
compelled testimony to violate Article 20(3).
26. The Supreme Court found that narco-
analysis violated individuals right to privacy
and amounted to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.
Article 21 protects the right to life and
personal liberty, which has been broadly
interpreted to include various substantive
due process protections, including the right
to privacy and the right to be free from
torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment
27. However, any information or material that is
subsequently discovered with the help of
voluntary administered test results can be
admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of
the Evidence Act
28. The Supreme Court left open the possibility
for abuse of such tests when it provided a
narrow exception, almost as an
afterthought, namely, that information
indirectly garnered from a voluntary
administered test i.e. discovered with the
help of information obtained from such a
test can be admitted as evidence.
29. Guidelines by NHRC in 2000
No Lie Detector Tests should be
administered except on the basis of
consent of the accused. An option should
be given to the accused whether he wishes
to avail such test.
If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector
Test, he should be given access to a lawyer
and the physical, emotional and legal
implication of such a test should be
explained to him by the police and his
lawyer
30. The consent should be recorded before a
Judicial Magistrate.
During the hearing before the
Magistrate, the person alleged to have
agreed should be duly represented by a
lawyer.
At the hearing, the person in question
should also be told in clear terms that the
statement that is made shall not be a
confessional’ statement to the Magistrate
but will have the status of a statement made
to the police. IEA 25, 26.
31. The Magistrate shall consider all factors
relating to the detention including the length
of detention and the nature of the
interrogation.
The actual recording of the Lie Detector
Test shall be done by an independent
agency (such as a hospital) and conducted
in the presence of a lawyer.
32. A full medical and factual narration of the
manner of the information received must be
taken on record.
