As
per the Laboratory Procedure manuals, the impugned tests are being
conducted at the direction of jurisdictional courts even without
obtaining the consent of the intended test subjects. In most cases these
tests are conducted conjunctively wherein the veracity of the
information revealed through narcoanalysis is subsequently tested
through a polygraph examination or the BEAP test. In some cases the
investigators could first want to ascertain the capacity of the subject
to deceive (through polygraph examination) or his/her familiarity with
the relevant facts (through BEAP test) before conducting a narcoanalysis
interview. Irrespective of the sequence in which these techniques are
administered, we have to decide on their permissibility in circumstances
where any of these tests are compulsorily administered, either
independently or conjunctively.
It
is plausible that investigators could obtain statements from
individuals by threatening them with the possibility of administering
either of these tests. The person being interrogated could possibly make
self-incriminating statements on account of apprehensions that these
techniques will extract the truth. Such behaviour on part of
investigators is more likely to occur when the person being interrogated
is unaware of his/her legal rights or is intimidated for any other
reason. It is a settled principle that a statement obtainedthrough
coercion, threat or inducement is involuntary and hence inadmissible as
evidence during trial. However, it is not settled whether a statement
made on account of the apprehension of being forcibly subjected to the
impugned tests will be involuntary and hence inadmissible. This aspect
merits consideration. It is also conceivable that an individual who has
undergone either of these tests would be more likely to make
self-incriminating statements when he/she is later confronted with the
results. The question in that regard is whether the statements that are
made subsequently should be admissible as evidence. The answers to these
questions rest on the permissibility of subjecting individuals to these
tests without their consent.
I. Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the `right against self- incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
For more information about this case visit at:Legitquest
I. Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the `right against self- incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
For more information about this case visit at:Legitquest
No comments:
Post a Comment