Art 20(3)

I dont know what others will say on this issue, but yes, Mr. mehbub, you have raised a very important issues. I have very deep doubts regarding the use of such admission by the accused even including lie detector. But the opinion of the Trial judge must outweight such evidence and the Trial Judge must not act upon such admission blindly as binding on the court.

If the statements made during narco analysis help the police to further investigate and then if the investigation comes out with some of the other facts which incriminmate the accused, then what?

It would be very intresting to see the use of narco on politicians in sensitive matters like Bofors etc., My thinking is once the politicians are started to be exposed to narco test , they will manage to declare such tests as unconstitutional.

A Simple application in the court in which the case is pending ' requesting  narco test on the politicians/persons' in respect of a sensitive issue. JUST SEE HOW THEY RUN IN COURTS TO GET THE ORDER QUASHED.

Problem is that it is only the investigating agency [ controlled by the STATE]  has  a right to ask the questions. Know what i mean? If the right questions are not asked , then what to do?

yes Mr. rajan, u r absolutely correct. The questions r prepared by the investigating agency. and we know how they will prepare the questions. Further art 20(3) clearly says that the accused shall not be compelled to incriminate himself. If not to get incriminating facts, then what for the police want to give narco test? ONLY TO GET FACT TO BE USED AGAINST HIM.

Now again, if the circumstantial evidence surrounding the case is contrary to the statements coming out from the mouth of the accused in the state of hypnotism then WHAT?

Tell you what - police will say to the accused  ' mai tume chudata hai ' - of course in return for.......

Dear Rajan, ie., the case. The accused must take the test voluntarily. and it means that he must say for eg." I wish to take a lie detection test b'coz I want to clear my name." But if the police say "If u want to clear ur name, take a lie detection test" or "take lie detection test and we'll let u go" then the test goes. It cannot be said to be voluntary. pls refer to NHRC guidelines for liedetection tests. This equally applies to Narco test also.

That is why in my bail applications also I take the stand ' The Applicant states that he is falsely implicated and is innocent. He has no confessions to make nor is in a position to help the police recover anything remotely conecting with the crime' . In this way even if something is recovered from him , it is involuntary and hence hit by Art 20(3). I am yet to challenge the recovery on these grounds in appeal against conviction,  but it would be interesting to see how the matter turns up. Any way SC has stated that even recovery is a weak piece of evidence as nothing stops the police from changing an ordinary discovery into recovery at the instance of the accused. 

Investigation can be attacked on the ground that what could have been earlier discovered by proper investigation is later on turned into a recovery.