Bench: Division Bench, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B.Varale.
Citation: SLP(crl).No.5392 of 2024
Judgment Date: 9 June 2025.
Appellant: Amlesh kumar
Respondent: State of Bihar
Legal Provisions: Article 20,Article 21 of constitution and section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the case
The case pertains to dowry demand and involuntary narco analysis test,On 24 August 2022 at Mahua Police Station,a case filed against the appellant and his family for dowry harassment ,the complainant alleged that accused person would demand dowry and physically assault her sister repeatedly.
On 22 august 2022 the complainant received a call from the appellant informing that his sister had run away from here when she goes to search for her sister,she is unable to find her sister and feels to something suspicious about the accused.
On the other hand appellant says that while he was going to ayodhya,his wife got off the bus at Baabli Chawk and did not return, due to the accusations, multiple charges sections 341,342,323,363 364,498(A),504,506 and 34 under the IPC 1860 were filed against the accused.
Background
When the matter appears before the session Judge,the appellant appeal for regular bail.But session Judge does not grant a regular bail due to the allegations made in the FIR. During the investigation,it is revealed that co-accused has confessed that he killed his wife and threw her body into the river.
When the case before the Patna High Court,the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) suggest to Patna High Court that a narco analysis test should be conducted, the Patna High Court denies bail and awaits the results of the narcoanalysis test.The accused person moved to supreme court and stated that performing a narco analysis test without his consent is a violation of his rights under Article 20(3) and Article 21.
Issue
There are 3 issues confrontation of supreme court-
1) Whether in the attending facts and circumstances,the High Court have accepted such a submission.
2) Whether a report of voluntary narco – analysis test can form the sole basis of convction in the absence of other evidence onrecord.
3) Whether an accused can voluntary narco test analysis seek,as matter of an indefeasible right.
Statute of Legal Provisions Applied
Constitution of India
* Article 20(3): No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
* Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Indian Evidence Act 1872
* Section 27: Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
* Corresponding Section 23 Bharat Sakshya Adhiniyam: (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him.
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.
Ratio Decidendi
(i) A test performed without consent will not be considered ‘material evidence’ in the eyes of law.
(ii) While delivering its decision,the court gave the reason that conducted narco analysis test without the consent of any person would be a violation their fundamental right.
(iii) Conducting an narco analysis test without consent is a breach of mental peace of the person.
(iv) Any direct evidence present during an involuntary test cannot be admissible in court. But if a physical object is found during invoulntary test it will be admissible aa evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
(v) The court futher stated that mental privacy is a integral part of personal liberty.
Judgement
(i) In its Judgement, the court stated that conducting a narco analysis test without consent it is direct violation of Article 21 Right to privacy which is is established in Selvi and Ors vs State of Karanataka(2010) and right against the self Incrimination.
(ii) The court further held that narco-analysis and polygraph test can be conducted if the consent is voluntary and free consent. Forced consent is unconstitutional. And court clarified that there is not absolute right to test in context of matter of right.
(iii) The court Upheld Constitutional Protection in laid down guildline in the case of Selvi and ors vs State of Karanataka(2010). And whenever such a voluntary test is conducted,the National Human Rights (NHRC) 1999 guildeline should be applicable.
(iv) The court,in its rulling, overturned the Patna High court’s order and declared that requiring an narco analysis test is unconstitutional,the supreme court referred the case back to the High court ,instructing them to bail application must be adjudicated again solely in legal merits without the influence of invasive test pressure.
Conclusion
(i) The court observed that even if the test is voluntary,The human Rights Confession’s guildelines should be followed, requiring the accused consent.The recording should be before a Judicial magisterate and the accused must have a lawyer to understand the emotion impact of the test.
(ii) Whatever is said during the test will not be considered a confession it will be like a statement given to the police.The test should be conducted by an independent agency. Not in private location.
(iii) We cannot convict someone based only on information from the test,it can only be used as corroborative evidence.
(iv) The court made it clear that no accused can be compelled to undergo a narco test against their will. This was said before in Selvi vs State of karnatka but there supreme add a new point in this case is that if they accused wants,they have to give voluntary narco test,but this is not an indefeasible right .
(v) The court decide if the test is needed and if the accused really gave consent of their own free will.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SHUBHANGI SHUKLA A 2nd year (3Year) LL.B STUDENT FROM UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW.
Reference
1. Amlesh Kumar v.State of Bihar,S.L.P (crl.)No.5392 of 2024
2. Indian Evidence Act,1872,§27,No 1,Acts of Parliament,1860.
3. Bharatiya Sakshay Adhiniyam,2023§23,No 47,Acts of Parliament 2023.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka ,AIR 2010 SC 1974
