Court holds consent is mandatory for narco analysis; victim’s right to fair investigation cannot override accused’s constitutional protection against self-incrimination and personal liberty
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with concurrent orders of the trial court and revisional court declining a father’s plea to direct narco analysis tests on accused persons in the 2017 murder case of his daughter, holding that no accused can be compelled to undergo such a test without consent.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, hearing a petition filed by Pappu Singh, father of the deceased victim Yogesh Kumari, observed that the law on involuntary narco analysis is firmly settled by the Supreme Court and cannot be diluted even in serious offences. The court said that consent is a personal and non-derogable safeguard available to the subject of the test, and a complainant or victim cannot insist that unwilling accused persons be subjected to the procedure.
The petition challenged orders of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, both of which had rejected the request for narco analysis. The trial court had noted that the accused persons had refused to undergo the test, and the revisional court upheld that view, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the crime was committed inside a room, leaving little scope for eyewitnesses, and that scientific investigation tools such as narco analysis were necessary to uncover the truth. He also relied on Supreme Court judgments recognizing the victim’s right to fair investigation and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court, however, rejected the plea. It relied on Selvi and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reiterating that involuntary administration of narco analysis violates Article 20(3), which protects against self-incrimination, and Article 21, which safeguards personal liberty and substantive due process. The court emphasized that even an accused cannot claim an indefeasible right to undergo narco analysis on his own application, much less can a complainant force an unwilling accused to submit to it.
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s anguish and the victim’s right to fair investigation, but said those rights cannot override constitutional protections guaranteed to the accused. It held that fair trial and fair investigation must balance the interests of the accused, victim, and society, but non-derogable safeguards cannot be compromised on the ground of gravity of the offence.
At the same time, the court noted that if the petitioner believes the investigation is incomplete or unfair, he may approach the competent court for further investigation or monitoring of the investigation. Referring to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., the court said the magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation.
Finding no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending application.
Bottom Line :
Narco Analysis Test cannot be compelled upon unwilling accused at the instance of complainant/victim - Consent of accused is mandatory - Victim's right to fair investigation under Article 21 cannot override accused's non-derogable protection against self-incrimination and personal liberty under Articles 20(3) and 21 - Complainant may seek further investigation/monitoring before competent court.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 20(3), 21, 227, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 53, 53A, 54, 156(3), 200, 482, 36, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27
Pappu Singh v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982736
