Back
2010 (3) Supreme 558
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Smt. Selvi & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004
Decided on : 5-05-2010
Constitution of India,1950- Article 20(3) -Involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases-Whether violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution-Held that forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of ‘substantive due process’ which is required for restraining personal liberty- Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these techniques are forcibly administered during course of an investigation or for any other purpose since test results could also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal nature- Impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of CrPC -Such an expansive interpretation is not feasible in light of the rule of ‘ejusdem generis’ and the considerations which govern interpretation of statutes in relation to scientific advancements- Compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual- It would also amount to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms-Apart from that, placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the ‘right to fair trial’- Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the ‘right against self-incrimination’-No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise- Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty- However, voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice can be conducted provided that certain safeguards are in place- Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test- 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. (Paras 222, 223)
Constitution of India,1950- Article 20(3) -Involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test- Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques amount to ‘testimonial compulsion’ thereby attracting the bar of Article 20(3)-Held results obtained from tests such as polygraph examination and the BEAP test should also be treated as ‘personal testimony’, since they are a means for ‘imparting personal knowledge about relevant facts’- Hence, results obtained through involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests (i.e.the narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and BEAP test) come within the scope of ‘testimonial compulsion’, thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3) (Para 165)
Constitution of India,1950- Article 21 -Involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test- II. Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution-Held there are several ways in which the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests could be viewed as a restraint on ‘personal liberty’- The most obvious indicator of restraint is the use of physical force to ensure that an unwilling person is confined to the premises where the tests are to be conducted- Furthermore, the drug-induced revelations or the substantive inferences drawn from measurement of the subject’s physiological responses can be described as an intrusion into the subject’s mental privacy- It is also quite conceivable that a person could make an incriminating statement on being threatened with prospective administration of any of these techniques- Conversely, a person who has been forcibly subjected to these techniques could be confronted with the results in a subsequent interrogation, thereby eliciting incriminating statements-. It is undeniable that during a narcoanalysis interview,the test subject does lose ‘awareness of place and passing of time’- It is also quite evident that all the three impugned techniques can be described as methods of interrogation which impair the test subject’s ‘capacity of decision or judgment’. -Going by the language of these principles, held that compulsory administration of impugned techniques constitutes ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ in the context of Article 21-This is because a forcible intrusion into a person’s mental processes is also an affront to human dignity and liberty, often with grave and long-lasting consequences. (Paras 169, 205)
Scientific techniques, such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test - Questionable reliability of results generated by them- In respect of narcoanalysis technique, it is observed that there is no guarantee that the drug- induced revelations will be truthful- Empirical studies have shown that during the hypnotic stage, individuals are prone to suggestibility and there is a good chance that false results could lead to a finding of guilt or innocence-As far as polygraph examination is concerned, though there are some studies showing improvements in accuracy of results with advancement in technology, there is always scope for error on account of several factors-Objections can be raised about the qualifications of examiner, physical conditions under which the test was conducted, the manner in which questions were framed and the possible use of ‘countermeasures’ by the test subject- A significant criticism of polygraphy is that sometimes physiological responses triggered by feelings such as anxiety and fear could be misread as those triggered by deception-Similarly, with the P300 Waves test there are inherent limitations such as the subject having had ‘prior exposure’ to the ‘probes’ which are used as stimuli- The questionable scientific reliability of these techniques comes into conflict with the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is an essential feature of criminal trials. (Para 210)
Polygraph tests- The theory behind polygraph tests is that when a subject is lying in response to a question, he/she will produce physiological responses that are different from those that arise in the normal course- During the polygraph examination, several instruments are attached to the subject for measuring and recording the physiological responses- The examiner then reads these results, analyzes them and proceeds to gauge credibility of the subject’s answers- Instruments such as cardiographs, pneumographs, cardio-cuffs and sensitive electrodes are used in the course of polygraph examinations-They measure changes in aspects such as respiration, blood pressure, blood flow, pulse and galvanic skin resistance- The truthfulness or falsity on part of the subject is assessed by relying on the records of the physiological responses. (Para 10)
Polygraph tests- Limitations of- Polygraph tests have several limitations and therefore a margin for errors- The premise behind these tests is questionable because the measured changes in physiological responses are not necessarily triggered by lying or deception-Instead, they could be triggered by nervousness, anxiety, fear,confusion or other emotions-Apart from that , physical conditions in the polygraph examination room can also create distortions in the recorded responses-The mental state of subject is also vital since a person in a state of depression or hyperactivity is likely to offer highly desparate physiological responses which could mislead the examiner- In some cases the subject may have suffered from loss of memory in the intervening time-period between the relevant act and the conduct of the test- When the subject does not remember the facts in question, there will be no self-awareness of truth or deception and hence recording of the physiological responses will not be helpful-Errors may also result from ‘memory-hardening’, i.e. a process by which the subject has created and consolidated false memories about a particular incident- This commonly occurs in respect of recollections of traumatic events and the subject may not be aware of the fact that he/she is lying- However, the biggest concern about polygraph tests is that an examiner may not be able to recognise deliberate attempts on part of the subject to manipulate the test results- Such ‘countermeasures’ are techniques which are deliberately used by subject to create certain physiological responses in order to deceive the examiner- The intention is that by deliberately enhancing one’s reaction to the control questions,the examiner will incorrectly score the test in favour of truthfulness rather than deception- The most commonly used ‘countermeasures’ are those of creating a false sense of mental anxiety and stress at the time of the interview, so that responses triggered by lying cannot be readily distinguished. (Paras 16, 18)
Narcoanalysis technique-This test involves the intravenous administration of a drug that causes the subject to enter into a hypnotic trance and become less inhibited- The drug-induced hypnotic stage is useful for investigators since it makes the subject more likely to divulge information- The drug used for this test is sodium pentothal, higher quantities of which are routinely used for inducing general anaesthesia in surgical procedures- The use of ‘truth-serums’ and hypnosis is not a recent development. Earlier versions of narcoanalysis technique utilised substances such as scopolamine and sodium amytal- This technique can serve several ends- The revelations could help investigators to uncover vital evidence or to corroborate pre-existing testimonies and prosecution theories-Narcoanalysis tests have also been used to detect ‘malingering’(faking of amnesia). (Para 41, 46)
Narcoanalysis technique -Limitations of –This technique does not have an absolute success rate and there is always the possibility that subject will not reveal any relevant information- Apart from that ,most of the drug-induced revelations are not related to relevant facts and they are more likely to be in nature of inconsequential information about the subjects’ personal lives- It takes great skill on part of the interrogators to extract and identify information which could eventually prove to be useful- While some persons are able to retain their ability to deceive even in the hypnotic state, others can become extremely suggestible to questioning- This is especially worrying, since investigators who are under pressure to deliver results could frame questions in a manner that prompts incriminatory responses- Subjects could also concoct fanciful stories in the course of the ‘hypnotic stage’- Since the responses of different individuals are bound to vary, there is no uniform criteria for evaluating the efficacy of ‘narcoanalysis’ technique. (Para 47)
Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test-‘Brain Electrical Activation Profile test’, is also known as the ‘P300 Waves test’- It is a process of detecting whether an individual is familiar with certain information by way of measuring activity in the brain that is triggered by exposure to selected stimuli- This test consists of examining and measuring ‘event-related potentials’(ERP) i.e. electrical wave forms emitted by the brain after it has absorbed an external event- An ERP measurement is recognition of specific patterns of electrical brain activity in a subject that are indicative of certain cognitive mental activities that occur when a person is exposed to a stimulus in the form of an image or a concept expressed in words- The measurement of the cognitive brain activity allows the examiner to ascertain whether the subject recognised stimuli to which he/she was exposed. (Para 67)
‘P300 Waves test’-Limitations of -An important objection is centred on the inherent difficulty of designing the appropriate ‘probes’ for the test-Even if the ‘probes’ are prepared by an examiner who is thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the facts being investigated, there is always a chance that a subject may have had prior exposure to the material probes- In case of such prior exposure, even if the subject is found to be familiar with probes, the same will be meaningless in the overall context of the investigation- A possibility of prior exposure to the stimuli may also arise if the investigators unintentionally reveal crucial facts about crime to subject before conducting test- The subject could also be familiar with the content of material probes for several other reasons- Another significant limitation is that even if the tests demonstrate familiarity with the material probes, there is no conclusive guidance about the actual nature of the subject’s involvement in the crime being investigated. (Paras 73, 74)
Right against self-incrimination-Underlying rationale of -Right against self-incrimination’ is viewed as an essential safeguard in criminal procedure-Its underlying rationale broadly corresponds with two objectives of ensuring reliability of statements made by an accused, and ensuring that such statements were made voluntarily- It is quite possible that a person suspected or accused of a crime may have been compelled to testify through methods involving coercion,threats or inducements during the investigative stage- When a person is compelled to testify on his/her own behalf, there is a higher likelihood of such testimony being false- False testimony is undesirable since it impedes the integrity of trial and the subsequent verdict.-Hence purpose of ‘rule against involuntary confessions’ is to ensure that testimony considered during trial is reliable- The premise is that involuntary statements are more likely to mislead judge and the prosecutor, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice- Even during investigative stage, false statements are likely to cause delays and obstructions in the investigation efforts-Right against self-incrimination is a vital safeguard against torture and other ‘third-degree methods’that could be used to elicit information- It serves as a check on police behaviour during the course of investigation- The exclusion of compelled testimony is important, otherwise investigators will be more inclined to extract information through such compulsion as a matter of course- The frequent reliance on such ‘short-cuts’ will compromise the diligence required for conducting meaningful investigations. (Paras 91, 92)
Constitution of India,1950- Article 20(3)- Protection of - Who can invoke- Right against self-incrimination protects persons who have been formally accused as well as those who are examined as suspects in criminal cases- It also extends to cover witnesses who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the ongoing investigation or even in cases other than the one being investigated- Ordinarily Article 20(3) cannot be invoked by witnesses during proceedings that cannot be characterised as criminal proceedings- In administrative and quasi-criminal proceedings, the protection of Article 20(3) becomes available only after a person has been formally accused of committing an offence. (Para 109 to 111)
Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Sections 53 and 54 –Plea of respondents that the impugned techniques should be read into the relevant provisions Sections 53 and 54 of CrPC.- The contentious provision is the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the CrPC (amended in 2005) – Contention of respondents that the phrase ‘modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests’ should be liberally construed to include impugned techniques-It was argued that even though narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test have not been expressly enumerated, they could be read in by examining the legislative intent- However held that the results of impugned tests should be treated as testimonial acts for purpose of invoking right against self-incrimination-Hence held that it would be prudent to state that the phrase ‘and such other tests’ [which appears in the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of CrPC should be read so as to confine its meaning to include only those tests which involve examination of physical evidence- Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of CrPC does not enumerate certain other forms of medical examination that involve testimonial acts, such as psychiatric examination among others-This demonstrates that amendment to this provision was informed by a rational distinction between the examination of physical substances and testimonial acts. (Paras 146 to 149)
Administration of Polygraph Test- Guidelines for-As published by National Human Rights Commission- 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 Magistrate, 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 statement that is made shall not be a ‘confessional’ statement to Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police-Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to detention including length of detention and nature of interrogation-The actual recording of Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency and conducted in the presence of a lawyer- A full medical and factual narration of the manner of information received must be taken on record. (Para 223)
Facts of the Case :
The legal questions in present batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. The involuntary administration of the impugned techniques prompts questions about the protective scope of the ‘right against self-incrimination’ which finds place in Article 20(3) of our Constitution. Issues that arose for consideration were Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution?
Findings of the Court :
It was held that a conjunctive reading of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution along with the principles of evidence law leads to a clear answer that Courts must recognize the importance of personal autonomy in aspects such as the choice between remaining silent and speaking. An individual’s decision to make a statement is the product of a private choice and there should be no scope for any other individual to interfere with such autonomy, especially in circumstances where the person faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties. Hence it was held that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy. Forcible interference with a person’s mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the ‘right against self-incrimination’. Compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self- incrimination’. This is because the underlying rationale of said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence. Protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with Section 161(2) of CrPC it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during an investigation. The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through use of compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual’s choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible ‘conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue’.The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a ‘testimonial’ character and they cannot be categorized as material evidence.
Forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of ‘substantive due process’ which is required for restraining personal liberty. Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these techniques are forcibly administered during course of an investigation or for any other purpose since test results could also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal nature. Impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of CrPC .Such an expansive interpretation is not feasible in light of the rule of ‘ejusdem generis’ and the considerations which govern interpretation of statutes in relation to scientific advancements. Compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It would also amount to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms.Apart from that, placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the ‘right to fair trial’ Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the ‘right against self-incrimination’.No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice can be conducted provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. 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.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Involuntary Scientific Techniques Violate Personal Liberty and Privacy: The involuntary administration of scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into an individual's mental privacy and personal liberty. Such actions are not provided for under existing statutes and conflict with constitutional protections against self-incrimination and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (!) (!) (!) .
Test Results as Testimonial Evidence and Testimonial Compulsion: The results derived from these techniques bear a testimonial character, as they involve the conveyance of personal knowledge about relevant facts. Consequently, their involuntary administration amounts to testimonial compulsion, which is protected against by constitutional provisions (!) (!) (!) .
Protection of the Right Against Self-Incrimination: The right against self-incrimination extends to the investigative stage, safeguarding individuals from being compelled to produce evidence or testify in a manner that could expose them to criminal charges. Any statement or evidence obtained through coercion, threats, or without proper consent is inadmissible, and reliance on such evidence violates constitutional protections (!) (!) (!) .
Involuntary Administration Violates Substantive Due Process and Human Dignity: Forcing individuals to undergo these tests without informed consent breaches the standard of substantive due process and amounts to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Such actions undermine human dignity and violate constitutional rights, especially when they involve mental intrusion or physical force (!) (!) (!) .
Limits of Medical and Scientific Examinations: While medical examinations and collection of bodily substances are permitted under statutory provisions, they must be conducted with the individual's consent and within the scope of the law. The impugned techniques, involving testimonial responses, cannot be read into existing statutes that authorize physical evidence collection, as they infringe upon the constitutional right against self-incrimination (!) (!) (!) .
Voluntary Consent and Safeguards: The voluntary administration of these techniques, with proper safeguards such as informed consent, judicial approval, and legal representation, may be permissible. However, even with consent, the results of such tests cannot be admitted as evidence unless they are discovered independently and without reliance on the testimonial responses obtained during the tests (!) (!) (!) .
International Norms and Human Rights Standards: International conventions and declarations emphasize that torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are prohibited and that any medical or scientific experimentation must be conducted with free consent. These standards reinforce the constitutional protections and highlight the importance of respecting mental and physical integrity (!) (!) (!) .
Incompatibility with Fair Trial and Other Constitutional Rights: The involuntary use of these techniques compromises the fairness of the trial process, impairs the right to legal representation, and hampers the ability to present a defense. It also conflicts with the right to privacy and the prohibition against cruel treatment, especially when such methods are used without proper safeguards or consent (!) (!) (!) .
No Justification for Forcible Use in Investigation: The Court concludes that the forcible administration of these techniques is unjustified, even in cases involving serious offences. Such actions amount to an unreasonable restriction on personal liberty and violate constitutional rights, and cannot be justified on grounds of public interest or national security (!) (!) (!) .
Recommendations and Safeguards: Voluntary use of these techniques may be permitted if strict safeguards are followed, including informed consent before a judicial magistrate, legal representation during testing, proper recording, and adherence to established guidelines. The results of tests conducted voluntarily, with safeguards, can be used for discovering evidence but not as direct evidence of guilt (!) (!) (!) .
Overall Disposition: The court emphasizes that no individual should be forcibly subjected to these scientific techniques, as doing so infringes constitutional protections and international human rights standards. The decision advocates for respecting personal autonomy, privacy, and dignity, and underscores that these rights cannot be overridden by public interest considerations unless explicitly justified by law and due process (!) (!) (!) .
This summary encapsulates the core legal principles and rulings without referencing specific case law, focusing instead on constitutional protections, the nature of testimonial evidence, and the importance of safeguards and voluntary consent.
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I. —
Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007.
1.The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.
2.Objections have been raised in respect of instances where individuals who are the accused, suspects or witnesses in an investigation have been subjected to these tests without their consent. Such measures have been defended by citing the importance of extracting information which could help the investigating agencies to prevent criminal activities in the future as well as in circumstances where it is difficult to gather evidence through ordinary means. In some of the impugned judgments, reliance has been placed on certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to refer back to the responsibilities placed on citizens to fully co-operate with investigation agencies. It has also been urged that administering these techniques does not cause any bodily harm and that the extracted information will be used only for strengthening investigation efforts and will not be admitted as evidence during the trial stage. The assertion is that improvements in fact-finding during the investigation stage will consequently help to increase the rate of prosecution as well as the rate of acquittal. Yet another line of reasoning is that these scientific techniques are a softer alternative to the regrettable and allegedly widespread use of ‘third degree methods’ by investigators.
3.The involuntary administration of the impugned techniques prompts questions about the protective scope of the ‘right against self-incrimination’ which finds place in Article 20(3) of our Constitution. In one of the impugned judgments, it has been held that the information extracted through methods such as ‘polygraph examination’ and the ‘Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test’ cannot be equated with ‘testimonial compulsion’ because the test subject is not required to give verbal answers, thereby falling outside the protective scope of Article 20(3). It was further ruled that the verbal revelations made during a narcoanalysis test do not attract the bar of Article 20(3) since the inculpatory or exculpatory nature of these revelations is not known at the time of conducting the test. To address these questions among others, it is necessary to inquire into the historical origins and rationale behind the ‘right against self-incrimination’. The principal questions are whether this right extends to the investigation stage and whether the test results are of a ‘testimonial’ character, thereby attracting the protection of Article 20(3). Furthermore, we must examine whether relying on the test results or materials discovered with the help of the same creates a reasonable likelihood of incrimination for the test subject.
4.We must also deal with arguments invoking the guarantee of ‘substantive due process’ which is part and parcel of the idea of ‘personal liberty’ protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The first question in this regard is whether the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that provide for ‘medical examination’ during
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
