Accused's consent not required to conduct test: Guj HC

Ahmedabad, Aug 25 (UNI) In a significant ruling having far-reaching effects, the Gujarat High court has held that there is no need to acquire the accused person's consent before performing the Narco analysis or Brain finger-mapping test during the police investigation.

''Conducting or performing Narco or Brain mapping test is a part of investigation and the investigation agency does not require the consent of the accused. Otherwise, the investigation agency will not be in a position to further investigate the case,'' observed Justice M R Shah, while pronouncing the verdict of Godmother Santokben Jadeja's case, here yesterday.

The observation may affect several cases, including the 2005 infamous fake encounter of criminal Sohrabuddin Sheikh and other vital cases pending before various subordinate courts, to seek permission to conduct narco test of the accused.

It may be recalled that an appeal is pending before the sessions court here to seek permission to perform Narco test on 13 police officials, including three IPS officers D G Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandiyan and Dinesh Kumar, who are behind the bars in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

The Godmother had challenged the order of Junagadh sessions court, which had granted permission to conduct Narco test on her, before the Gujarat High Court. In the petition, it was contended by Santokben Jadeja that, to perform the test without consent of the accused is the violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, according to which the accused has the right to remain silent or not to give statement against him.

The court, in a detailed judgement, observed that ''When the accused or person has not told the truth during the investigation, naturally that accused or person would not be voluntarily giving consent for the tests as he is always apprehensive that if the tests are conducted, then the same might go against him. Therefore, he is bound to not give consent.'' About protection given to the accused in the Constitution, the Court observed that ''merely conducting two tests on the accused would not take away the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India''.

However, the Court has restricted the investigation agency to use the statement recorded during the tests as evidence against the accused, because it can be tantamount to violation of the Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

UNI