Westlaw India Delivery Summary Request made by : Request made on: WEB2 IP USER Thursday, 29 December, 2011 at 09:29 IST Cases

, Legislation, UK Cases, UK Legislation, UK Journals, UK Current Awareness, EU Materials and Current Awareness Selvi and others v State of Karnataka Current Document 1

Content Type:

Title : Delivery selection: Number of documents delivered:

© 2011 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited

313(3) and 315(1)(b) . Litigation. 1988. Contents. 1984. Blood Test. Criminal Justice System. polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) . Criminology. Fear. Inadmissible. 1955.Held. Memory. Employed. Restraint. Interrogation. Abuse. Constitution Of India. 20(3). 19. Attack. 2010 (5) SCR 381 Subject: Constitution. arts. Access. Signatures. 1860. 1908. Continuous. Handwriting. Prisoner. Hair. 161(2). Human Rights. 1848. Reliance. 1950.Constitution . Overruled. Medical Examination. Motor Vehicles Act. Criminal Keywords: Voluntary. 1966. Treatment. Commission Of An Offence. Suspect. 1923. Investigating Officer. History. 2010 AIR(SC) 1974. Hindu Marriage Act. Offer. Signature. Panchal 2010 Indlaw SC 340. Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1949. 2010 (7) SCC 263. Lawyer. 1975 Summary: Criminal . Doctor. 2010 (4) Scale 690. Confinement. Credibility. Fundamental Right.S. Code of Criminal Procedure. Warrants. Oath. Restriction. Prosecutor. R. Infringement. Attorney. Judiciary. Pressure. 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when r/w.Constitution of India. Registered. Freedom. Indian Penal Code. Limitation. 1973. suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during an Case Digest . Presumption. 1696. s. Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act. Opportunity. Environment. Criminal Justice. Science. President. divorce.SC has recognised that the protective scope of art. Violence. Fair Trial. 1978. 20(3) of the Constitution? .Right against self-incrimination . Code of Criminal Procedure. Torture. M. 161(2) of the CrPC it protects accused persons. Raveendran. Inference. Habeas Corpus. Reasonable Doubt. 1872. Balakrishnan. Doctrine. Robbery. J. Transmission. Innocent. 2010 (5) JT 11. Privacy. Marriage. Constitution. ss. compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the 'right against self-incrimination' This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence . Prisoners. Value. Review. 1973. Discovery. Field. Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Chain. U. Criminal Charge. Blood. Threats. 1956. Forensic. Companies Act. Harm. Induce. Sir John Jervis Act. Expert. Treason Act. 1950. Innocence. Production.Fundamental rights . Sea Customs Act. Compelling. Privilege. Character. Speech.Page1 Selvi and others v State of Karnataka Supreme Court of India 05 May 2010 Case Analysis Bench Where Reported K. Drug. Compelled Testimony. Criminal Case. Code Of Civil Procedure. Bombay Prohibition Act. Explain. Dealing. Indian Medical Council Act.(A) Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the 'right against self-incrimination' enumerated in art. Federal Rules of Evidence. Spirit. Inquiry. Identification. 1998. Admissible. G.Involuntary administration Narcoanalysis. Indian Evidence Act. 21 . Identification of Prisoners Act. 1920. Harassment. V.Code of Criminal Procedure. Search. Proviso. Silence. Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1898.

Held.Moreover. 20(3) of the Constitution and ss. 20(3) is decided by the trial judge but parties are obliged to produce documents in the first place .However. 20(3) .Page2 investigation . 313(3) and Proviso (b) of s.This position is embodied in a conjunctive reading of art.The scheme created by CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act also mandates that confessions made before police officers are ordinarily not admissible as evidence and it is only the statements made in the presence of a judicial magistrate which can be given weightage . 20(3) of the Constitution.Tests such as polygraph examination and the BEAP test do not involve a 'positive volitional act' on part of the test subject and hence their results should not be treated as testimony . the narcoanalysis technique. he/she cannot be compelled to answer questions that could expose him/her to incrimination and the trial judge cannot draw adverse inferences from the refusal to do so . polygraph examination and the BEAP test) come within the scope of 'testimonial compulsion'. even testimony in oral or written form can be required under compulsion if it is to be used for the purpose of identification or comparison with materials and information that is already in the possession of investigators Narcoanalysis test includes substantial reliance on verbal statements by the test subject and hence its involuntary administration offends the 'right against self-incrimination' . 161(2).e. results obtained through the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests (i. this does not entail that the results of these two tests should be likened to physical evidence and thereby excluded from the protective scope of art.(B) Whether the investigative use of the impugned techniques creates a likelihood of incrimination for the subject? . CrPC guards against the compulsory extraction of oral testimony. even at the stage of investigation .Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible 'conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue' . which prohibits self-incrimination . protective scope of art. statements made in custody are considered to be unreliable unless they have been subjected to cross-examination or judicial scrutiny . 20(3) .With respect to the production of documents. thereby attracting the protective shield of art. 20(3)? . 161(2). Indian law incorporates the 'rule against adverse inferences from silence' which is operative at the trial stage .(C) Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques amount to 'testimonial compulsion' thereby attracting the bar of art.Furthermore.Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent.Results obtained from polygraph examination or a BEAP test are also not in the nature of oral or written statements .Results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a 'testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence .Hence. a suspect or a witness to such techniques violates art. involuntarily administration subjecting an accused.Instead.Compulsory extraction of material (or physical) evidence lies outside the protective scope of art.Gist of this position is that even though an accused is a competent witness in his/her own trial. irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory . the applicability of art. having reference to the charge against the accused person . threat or promise.Held. 20(3) .Hence. if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement.(D) Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable restriction on 'personal liberty' .The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion . 20(3) r/w. s.A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding. 315(1) of the CrPC . inferences are drawn from the measurement of physiological responses recorded during the performance of these tests .

2001 Indlaw AP 457. 2003 (2) JCC 692. 2003 (1) SCC 500.As the guardians of these rights. in accordance with s.Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the 'right against self-incrimination' .Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests.The impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases. SC will be failing in its duty if it permits any citizen to be forcibly subjected to the tests in question . and Others. 2002 (10) JT 214. inhuman or degrading treatment' with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms . any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted.These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the 'Narcoanalysis technique' and the 'Brain Electrical Activation Profile' test . 2003 AIR(SCW) 1950. 2003 (3) SLT 1.Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty . 2001 AIR(AP) 502 . 2002 (7) SLT 218. 2003 (2) KLT 243.Furthermore.Appeal disposed of. Cases Referred To Thogorani Alias K.Forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of 'substantive due process' which is required for restraining personal liberty .It would also amount to 'cruel.One of the main functions of constitutionally prescribed rights is to safeguard the interests of citizens in their interactions with the government . 2003 (1) CPJ 14.Page3 as understood in the context of art.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' . 2003 (1) DMC 627. 2003 (1) Supreme 66. 27 of the Evidence Act. 2003 AIR(SC) 664.Held. M. 1872 . 2003 (2) Supreme 962 Mr. the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test . 53-A and 54 of the CrPC . placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the 'right to fair trial' . 2004 (110) CRLJ 4003 Sharda v Dharmpal 2003 Indlaw SC 306. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. the Explanation to ss.Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these techniques are forcibly administered during the course of an investigation or for any other purpose since the test results could also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal nature . X v Hospital Z 2002 Indlaw SC 1478. Vijaya v The Chairman and Managing Director.National Human Rights Commission had published 'Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000 . 21 of the Constitution? . 2003 (3) Scale 475A. 53. subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy . Damayanti v State of Orissa and Others 2004 Indlaw ORI 51. 2003 (3) JT 399. 2003 (1) UC 286 Smt.e.No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question. 2002 (9) Scale 224. i. 2003 AIR(SC) 3450.However. 2003 (3) CRJ 535. whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise . 2003 (4) SCC 493.

1976 (82) CRLJ 1680 Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 1975 Indlaw SC 629. 1979 (1) SCR 392 Nandini Satpathy v Dani (P. 1998 (7) JT 626. 1978 (1) SCC 248. 1978 AIR(SC) 597. 1978 (4) SCC 494. 1975 (2) SCC 148. Basu and another v State of West Bengal and another 1996 Indlaw SC 1546. 1970 (3) SCR 530 . 1981 AIR(SC) 379. 1997 AIR(SCW) 113. 1997 (1) SCC 416. 1978 AIR(SC) 1675. 1995 AIR(SC) 264. 1975 CRLJ 1111. 1980 CrLR(SC) 568. 1978 (2) SCC 424. 1994 (4) Scale 494. 1975 AIR(SC) 1378. 1998 (8) SCC 296. 1998 (9) SLT 418.) and Another 1978 Indlaw SC 318. 1996 (4) CCC 277. 1997 AIR(SC) 610. 1995 (2) SCJ 86 Balkishan A. 1975 (3) SCR 946 Rustom Cavasje Cooper and another v Union of India 1970 Indlaw SC 575. K. 1996 (8) Supreme 581 R. 1981 SCC(Cr) 62. 1997 (1) SCC 301. 1996 (4) Crimes 233. 1978 (2) SCR 621 Ananth Kumar Naik v State of Andhra Pradesh 1977 Indlaw AP 80. 1978 (2) SCJ 312. 1997 AIR(SC) 568. 1994 AIR(SCW) 4420. 1997 (1) AD(SC) 180.L. 1997 (103) CRLJ 743. 1997 SCC(Cr) 92. 1998 (9) Supreme 220 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v Union of India and Another 1996 Indlaw SC 1508. 1978 (3) SCR 608 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 Indlaw SC 212. 1978 AIR(SC) 1025.Page4 Mr 'X' v Hospital 'Z' 1998 Indlaw SC 1218. 1994 (6) JT 514. 1975 SCC(Cr) 468. 1997 (1) CCR 81. 1978 SCC(Cr) 236. 1977 (83) CRLJ 1797 Jamshed v State of Uttar Pradesh 1976 Indlaw ALL 112. 1981 (1) SCR 175 Anil Anantrao Lokhande v State of Maharashtra 1980 Indlaw MUM 3838. 1997 (1) JT 1. 1978 (84) CRLJ 1741. 1978 CrLR(SC) 195. 1978 (84) CRLJ 968. 1996 (9) Scale 318. 1970 (1) SCC 248. 1970 (1) CompLJ 244. 1980 (86) CRLJ 1424. 1994 (6) SCC 632. 1999 (1) CLJ 23. Gopal and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others 1994 Indlaw SC 832. R. 1980 (17) ACC 300. 1980 (4) SCC 600. 1979 SCC(Cr) 155. 1970 (40) CC 325. Rajagopal Alias R. 1997 AIR(SCW) 233. 1970 AIR(SC) 564. Devidayal Etc v State of Maharashtra Etc 1980 Indlaw SC 298. 1998 (6) Scale 230. 1978 (84) CRLJ 1797. 1999 AIR(SC) 495. 1981 (87) CRLJ 125 Sunil Batra and another v Delhi Administration and Others 1978 Indlaw SC 289. 1975 (1) ALR 252. 1997 (1) UJ 187 D.

1931 AIR(Cal) 601 Armando Schmerber v California 1966 (384) US 757 Attorney General's Reference (No. 1964 (2) SCJ 107. 1954 SCJ 428. 1964 (2) CRLJ 523 Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1962 Indlaw SC 577. 1963 ALJ 711. 1961 MLJ 208. 1971 (2) SCJ 123. 1960 (30) CC 644.Page5 Romesh Chandra Mehta v State of West Bengal 1968 Indlaw SC 2. Delhi. 1962 (1) SCJ 593. 1961 AIR(SC) 1808. 1964 AIR(Bom) 253. Sharma and Others v Satish Chandra. 1961 (67) CRLJ 856. 1999 (110) ELT 324. District Magistrate. 1993 (509) US 579 Ernesto Miranda v Arizona 1966 (384) US 436 Escobedo v State of Illinois 1964 (378) US 52 . 1961 (1) SCR 417 Deoman Shamji Patil v State 1958 Indlaw MUM 225. 1954 AIR(SC) 300. 577 Brown v Mississippi 1936 (297) US 278 Brown v Walker 1896 (161) US 591 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 1954 (1) SCR 1077 Bhondar v Emperor 1931 Indlaw CAL 181. 1978 (2) ELT 287. 1954 (60) CRLJ 865. 1954 (1) MLJ 680. and Others 1954 Indlaw SC 154. 3 of 1999) [2001] 1 All E. 1969 (2) SCR 461 State v Sheshappa Dudhappa Tambade (Original) 1963 Indlaw MUM 61. 1962 (64) BomLR 240.R. 1970 (72) BomLR 787. 1959 AIR(Bom) 284 M. 1962 AIR(SC) 159. 1970 CRLJ 863. 1963 (69) CRLJ 329. 1962 (3) SCR 10 Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v Maneck Phiroz Mistry and Another 1960 Indlaw SC 224. 1961 (1) SCJ 353. 1961 AIR(SC) 29. 1964 (1) SCR 332 Senior Electric Inspector and Others v Laxmi Narayan Chopra and Others 1961 Indlaw SC 443. 1961 ALJ 936. 1970 AIR(SC) 940. 1963 AIR(SC) 1295. 1962 (3) SCR 146 State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others 1961 Indlaw SC 144. 1954 (56) PunjLR 366. P.

R.C.W.Page6 Frye v United States [1923] 54 A.C. (2d) 385 Ibrahim v R [1914] A. Dugan v Commonwealth of Kentucky 1960 (333) S. 313 Slaughter v Oklahoma 2005 (105) P.2d 509 Horvath v R 1979 (44) C.C.C. 599 Lawrence M.K. v Dept.R.H.C.R.C. Breithaupt v Morris Abram 1957 (352) US 432 People v Jones 1954 (42) Cal.2d. of Health and Social Security [1981] 1 All E. 5100 R (on the application of S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2003] 1 All E. 2d 219 Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v State of Israel 1999 H. 755 Lindsey v United States 1952 (56) N.C. 545 Samuel Hoffman v United States 1951 (341) US 479 Saunders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 E. 46 Harrington v State (659) N. 148 R v Beland 1987 (36) C. 3d 832 State of New Jersey v Daryll Pitts . 237 Mahipal Maderna v State of Maharashtra 1971 CRLJ 1405 Paul H.W.R.M. (3d) 481 Rochin v California 1951 (342) US 166 Rock v Arkansas 1987 (483) US 44 Royal College of Nursing of the U.

1949 s. 462 Cases Citing this Case Asha Tamang v State of West Bengal 2011 Indlaw CAL 788 Hansaben Lalitbhai Rathod v State of Gujarat 2011 Indlaw GUJ 1306 Essar Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited v State of Kerala 2011 Indlaw KER 183. 266 Townsend v Sain 1963 (372) US 293 United States v Cordoba (104) F.2d 523 Wong Kam-ming v R [1979] 1 All E. 1949 Bombay Prohibition Act.Piccinonna (885) F.J.R. 2011 (2) KLT 516 Mahesh S/o Mahonsing Shribas v State of Maharashtra.Page7 1320 NJ 1989 State v Hudson 1926 (314) Mo.C. 599 State v Levitt 1961 (36) N.3d 225 United States v Galbreth (Supp908) F. 939 Woolmington v DPP [1935] A. 2010 AllMR(Cr) 3117 Legislation Cited Bombay Prohibition Act. through Investigation Officer 2010 Indlaw MUM 794. 877 United States v Holt 1910 (218) US 245 United States v. 129A Code of Civil Procedure.2d 1522 United States v Swanson (572) F. 1908 .2d 1529 United States v Scheffer 1998 (523) US 303 United States v Solomon (753) F.

1950 art. 253 Constitution of India. 1923 Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act. 359(1) Employee Polygraph Protection Act. 1973 s. 1920 s. 54 Code of Criminal Procedure. 20 Constitution of India. 1973 s. 1973 s. 1978 Constitution of India. 26 r. 1973 s. 1973 s. 39 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1955 Identification of Prisoners Act. 1950 Constitution of India. 1973 s. 1998 Hindu Marriage Act. 1973 s. 1950 art. 53A Code of Criminal Procedure. 1950 art. 161(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 s. 1950 art. 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure. 156(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. 3 Identification of Prisoners Act. 22(1) Constitution of India. 75(e) Code of Civil Procedure. 1973 s. 1898 s. 1898 s.Page8 Code of Civil Procedure. 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1950 art. 162 Code of Criminal Procedure. 53 Code of Criminal Procedure. 160 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1908 s. 1908 s. 1920 Identification of Prisoners Act. 20(3) Constitution of India. 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. 10A Code of Civil Procedure. 151 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 s. 96 Code of Criminal Procedure. 47 Constitution of India. 1973 s. 1920 s. 5 . 1973 s. 163 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1950 art. 313(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 1908 O. 342(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 s. 1973 s. 315(1) Companies Act. 1950 art. 21 Constitution of India. 161(1) Code of Criminal Procedure.

269 Indian Penal Code. 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1920 s. 1966 Sea Customs Act Sir John Jervis Act. 1872 s. 132 Indian Medical Council Act. 2(h) Indian Penal Code. 44 Indian Penal Code. 6 Indian Evidence Act. 1988 s. 73 Indian Evidence Act. 1988 s. 1872 s. 24 Indian Evidence Act. 27 Indian Evidence Act. 319 Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 s. 119 Indian Evidence Act. 1860 s. 1988 Motor Vehicles Act. 1872 s. 1872 s. 25 Indian Evidence Act. 1860 s. 1860 s. 403 Federal Rules of Evidence. 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence. 1872 s. 203 Motor Vehicles Act. 270 Indian Penal Code. 1975 r.Page9 Identification of Prisoners Act. 204 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 26 Indian Evidence Act. 702 © 2011 Thomson Information South Asia Pvt Ltd . 1696 Federal Rules of Evidence. 1848 Treason Act. 202 Motor Vehicles Act. 1872 Indian Evidence Act. 1872 s. 1860 s. 1956 Indian Medical Council Act. 64(1A) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1872 s. 185 Motor Vehicles Act. 1860 Indian Penal Code. 1988 s. 1984 s. 1956 s. 1975 r.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful