The accused's consent to undergo narco analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests would not be an infringement of the right against self-incrimination, rather it would be covered by the fundamental right of the accused to defend himself.

1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused challenging the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in relation to the FIR No. 270/2012 registered at the Police Station Basni, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for fair investigation and for having narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests conducted upon the petitioner, has been rejected.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that one Ashok Gaur filed a report at the Police Station Basni on 27.2.2012 alleging interalia that his sister Gayatri went missing from the house at about 1 O'Clock in the afternoon. At that time, the tenant living in the adjoining house namely Moti Ram the petitioner herein, came out of his room. On an inquiry being made, the petitioner denied having any knowledge of Gayatri and locked the door and went away. The complainant started a search for Gayatri and ultimately, on opening the door of the tenant's room he saw that Gayatri was hanging from the fan hook in the said room. She was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. He saw that blood stains were scattered at various places in the room. Gayatri was having a large number of injuries on her body. A suspicion was expressed on the petitioner Moti Ram and his other companion tenants for having raped Gayatri and thereafter having murdered her.

3. On the basis of this information, an FIR No. 270/12 was registered at the Police Station Basni for the offences under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. and investigation commenced.

4. It is relevant to mention here that a suicide note scribed by the deceased was recovered during investigation in which the deceased did not level any allegations against the petitioner rather wrote that her family members were responsible for her suicide.

5. When the petitioner was arrested in the case, he raised a grievance that the father of the deceased was a Police Constable. Her brother Suresh was also a Police Constable and her uncles Amarchand and Omprakash are also employed as Policemen and thus, they conspired together to falsely foist the charges of rape and murder upon the petitioner.

6. He alleged that it was a case, wherein, being enraged by Gayatri and the petitioner's relationship, these family members, mercilessly assaulted her and as a result, Gayatri committed suicide and the family members in order to cover up their tracks laid the blame on the head of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner accordingly for proving his innocence, filed an application before the trial Court during the pendency of the investigation praying that the Investigating Officer be directed to have the narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests conducted upon the petitioner so that the truth of the matter could be brought out. The petitioner conceded that he was ready to face the consequences of the reports of the aforesaid tests possibly being adverse and inculpating him for the offences.

8. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on 11.1.2013 and thus the instant misc. petition has been filed seeking a direction that the petitioner prosecuting agency be directed to subject the petitioner to the aforesaid three tests so that the truth of the matter can be brought on record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2010 SC 1974 contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that a person cannot be compelled to undergo these tests as the techniques are violative of the right against self-incrimination. However, learned counsel argued that when the accused himself volunteers to undergo the tests, then in order to establish his innocence, the same can be permitted. He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has also approved that the lie director test can be administered on the