Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Rajeshree Aman Hemani, was an accused in Criminal Case No.19 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, arising out of Crime No.228 of 2004 for offences of cheating, misappropriation, and forgery related to the funds of Nagpur Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The investigating agency sought to subject her to narco analysis. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 21st October 2005, permitted the test. This order was confirmed in revision by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 29th November 2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal writ petition. The petitioner contended that she suffered from Neurogenic Bladder due to Spinabifide and that administering anesthesia or drugs for narco analysis could cause health hazards. She also argued that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects her from being compelled to be a witness against herself, and that her consent was obtained forcibly. She relied on observations of the Human Rights Commission that lie detector tests cannot be applied without the accused's consent, which should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the order permitting narco analysis was unsustainable as the petitioner's consent was not voluntary and the test would violate Article 20(3). The court quashed the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right Against Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - Narco Analysis - The court held that subjecting an accused to narco analysis without her free consent amounts to compelling her to be a witness against herself, violating Article 20(3). The consent must be voluntary and recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Narco Analysis - The court quashed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitting narco analysis as the petitioner's consent was allegedly obtained forcibly and she had withdrawn it. The court emphasized that the Human Rights Commission guidelines require consent to be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. (Paras 2-4) C) Medical Law - Health Hazards - Narco Analysis - The court noted the petitioner's medical condition (Neurogenic Bladder due to Spinabifide) and the risk of health hazards from anesthesia, but did not decide on this ground as the petition was allowed on the constitutional ground. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a court can order narco analysis of an accused without her free consent, and whether such order violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Narco analysis without free consent violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
- consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate
- medical risks must be considered
