JUDGMENT

1. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Police to subject a complainant to undergo scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy and Brain mapping during the investigation to prove the allegation and only then record his/her statement in order to control fake cases to secure right to life, liberty, dignity and speedy justice.

2. A perusal of the Writ Petition shows that the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner when he came across a case wherein a complaint was filed against a journalist under the SC-ST Act though the complainant and the accused did not know each other. According to the Petitioner, the journalist has been harassed and humiliated and had the complainant undergone a brainmapping test before the start of the investigation, the journalist would not have to undergo the humilation or arrest. It is stated by the Petitioner that with the growth of technology, scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy and Brain Mapping, etc., can be used to wipe out fake cases. It is stated that such techniques are used in developed countries like USA, China, Singapore etc. but they are not being used in our country.

3. At the outset it can be said the present petition is completely misplaced. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „ the Cr.P.C‟) provides as to how an FIR is to be recorded. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C also lays down the procedure for recording an FIR in case the information is given by a woman against whom an offence under Section 326A, 326B, 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is alleged to have been committed or attempted. After a complaint is reduced to writing in the format as prescribed under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C, the police starts investigating the offence. The Cr.P.C also lays down as to how the investigation has to be conducted and how the statements of witnesses, including the complainant, etc. are to be recorded.

4. It is well settled that courts do not interfere with the investigation as investigation is purely the domain of investigating agency. The prayer which is sought for by the Petitioner in the present PIL, if accepted, can result in further humiliation of the complainant, more so if the complainant is a lady for whom special protection/provisions have been made in the Cr.P.C. It is for the investigating agencies to uncover the truth.

5. The issue regarding the reliability of brain mapping test, polygraph test, Narco analysis, lie detector tests, etc. is still under lot of debate and a writ of mandamus can certainly not be passed by the Courts to the authorities to conduct such tests in order to ascertain the veracity of the complainant.

6. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, the Apex Court has held as under:

“50. It is also important to be aware of the limitations of the “narcoanalysis” technique. It does not have an absolute success rate and there is always the possibility that the subject will not reveal any relevant information. Some studies have shown that most of the drug-induced revelations are not related to the relevant facts and they are more likely to be in the 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 evaluati