NARCOANALYSIS

PRESENTERDr. Priyal Jain

PG Deptt. Of forensic medicineUCMS Delhi

Narkc = aneasthesia / torpor

Horseley coined this term

Robert Ernest House Father of truth serum

History

Psychotherapuetic measure 1920`s◦Scopolamine

In 1922 first time used in US in criminal investigation

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

In veerappan case 2001 Nithari killersAbdul Karim Telgi CaseBhanwari Devi CaseThe Mumbai train blasts,Aarushi murder case Malegaon blasts

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

Staff Required

PhysicianAneasthetistForensic PsychologistVideographerSupporting nursing staff

PROCEDURE OF NARCO-ANALYSIS

It includes following

Pre Test Interview

Pre-Narcotic State

Semi-Narcotic State

Post Test Interview

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.

Drug and Dosage

5% Amytal (sodium amobarbitol)5% Pentothal (thipentol sodium)

<1cc/min150-350mg75mg in organic brain disease

Semi Narcotic State:After establishing the semi narcotic state

and the individual’s appears to be:FlushedSlowing and slurred speechNystagmus observing by testing examinee’s

eye muscle with fingerForensic Psychologist or Psychiatrist

facilitate the interview

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

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

Contraindication

Airway disease including URISevere renal / hepatic diseaseHistory of porphyriaHypotensionBarbiturate dependencePsychosis - Rudolph Hess

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

? 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.

Landmark Judgement By SCI

Smt. Selvi & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka … Respondent

May 5, 2010

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI R.V. RAVEENDRANJ.M. PANCHAL

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.

THANK

YOU