Back
in Pappu Singh Case Bars Complainant from Forcing Narco Test on Accused
In a significant ruling that reinforces the , the has held that a complainant cannot compel an unwilling accused to undergo a . Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the single-judge bench, emphasised that consent is a available exclusively to the subject of such a test, and cannot be overridden by a third party, even one seeking justice for a victim.
The judgment came in a petition filed by the father of a woman who was allegedly murdered in . The petitioner sought directions to conduct Narco Analysis Tests on the accused persons, arguing that the investigation had stalled and that scientific interrogation was essential to uncover the truth. However, two of the accused expressly refused to undergo the test, and the trial court as well as the sessions court had dismissed the complainant's application. Upholding those orders, the High Court reiterated the binding law laid down by the in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2010), which categorically prohibits forcible administration of Narco Analysis, , or Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests.
Background: A Father’s Quest for Justice
The case stems from the disappearance of Yogesh Kumari on , when she went out to buy vegetables and never returned. An FIR was registered under , and suspicion fell on persons residing as tenants in the same locality. Over the years, the investigation progressed slowly, and the petitioner—the victim’s father—approached the trial court seeking a direction to conduct Narco Analysis Tests on the accused. Two of the accused explicitly stated before the trial court that they did not wish to undergo the test. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that such a test could not be enforced upon them.
The petitioner then challenged the order before the Additional Sessions Judge, arguing that the investigation had remained pending for several years and that scientific techniques were necessary to unearth the truth. The sessions court rejected the revision, prompting the father to move the under .
The Core Legal Issue: Consent as a
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that since the alleged murder had taken place inside a room with virtually no eyewitnesses, scientific investigation—including Narco Analysis—should be permitted in the interest of discovering the truth. He further argued that a encompasses the interest of the victim, and that is an incident of .
Justice Kaurav acknowledged the solemnity of the underlying facts and the legitimate anguish of a father seeking justice for a brutally murdered daughter. He accepted that the proposition that a embraces both the life and liberty of the accused and the interest of the victim is unexceptionable. However, he drew a clear line: the right to refuse a is personal to the accused and cannot be waived by a complainant.
Quoting the landmark Selvi judgment, the court observed: “The consent contemplated in Selvi (supra) is a available to the subject of the test. It is not a threshold that can be crossed on the accused's behalf, over his express objection, at the instance of a third party.” The court further reasoned that if even an accused person cannot claim an to undergo the test on his own application, it follows that no such right inheres in a complainant seeking to compel an unwilling accused.
Court’s Reasoning: and No
The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or in the orders passed by the trial court and the sessions court. It noted that the surviving accused persons had categorically declined to undergo the , and compelling them to do so at the instance of the complainant would violate the binding law laid down in Selvi and reiterated in .
Importantly, the court clarified that since the had already been filed, the concerned trial court was at liberty to examine all aspects of the matter. The petitioner could also seek further investigation or monitoring of the investigation if he so desired. This provides a procedural avenue for the complainant to pursue other investigative steps without infringing on the accused's constitutional rights.
Implications for Criminal Investigations and Victims’ Rights
This ruling reinforces the constitutional protection against under , which the in Selvi extended to neuro-scientific tests. The ’s decision clarifies that even in cases where the victim’s family is desperate for answers, the accused’s right to refuse such tests remains inviolable. For criminal practitioners, the judgment serves as a reminder that the consent requirement for Narco Analysis is absolute and cannot be overridden by a court or a complainant.
The decision also highlights the limits of a victim’s right to a . While courts are sensitive to the plight of victims and their families, the procedural safeguards available to the accused cannot be diluted in the name of truth-seeking. Legal professionals handling cases where scientific tests are sought must carefully advise clients that such tests are voluntary, and any attempt to compel them will be struck down.
Conclusion
The ’s ruling in is a reaffirmation of the core principle that no individual can be forcibly subjected to Narco Analysis or similar tests. It underscores the personal and non-derogable nature of consent, and makes clear that a complainant has no standing to compel an unwilling accused to undergo such a test. While the court expressed empathy for the grieving father, it remained steadfast in upholding the law. The judgment provides a clear roadmap: the complainant may pursue further investigation through other lawful means, but the accused’s constitutional rights remain paramount.
