The submission of the report on the Narco Analysis and P300 tests by the Special Investigation Team probing the fake stamp paper scam has given rise to two questions:
1. What are these?
2. Are the reports admissible in court as evidence?
To answer the first question:
Narco Analysis Test:
A person is able to lie by using his imagination. In the Narco Analysis Test, the subject's imagination is neutralised by making him semi-conscious. In this state, it becomes difficult for him to lie and his answers would be restricted to facts he is already aware of.
Experts inject a subject with Sodium Pentothal or Sodium Amytal. The dose is dependent on the person's sex, age, health and physical condition. A wrong dose can result in a person going into a coma, or even death.
The subject is not in a position to speak up on his own but can answer specific but simple questions. The answers are believed to be spontaneous as a semi-conscious person is unable to manipulate the answers.
P300 Test:
When the brain recognises a person or a sound, it generates a particular type of electric wave, which is called a P300.
| |||||||||||
The subject is not asked any question.
These test are used by investigators to cross check their findings, determine if a suspect is telling the truth or make him reveal facts pertaining to a case.
To answer the second question:
Lawyers are divided on whether the results of Narco Analysis and P300 tests are admissible as evidence in courts.
"Confessions made by a semi-conscious person is not admissible in court. A Narco Analysis Test report has some validity but is not totally admissible in court, which considers the circumstances under which it was obtained and assess its admissibility," advocate P R Vakil told rediff.com He represents former Maharashtra deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal's nephew Sameer's Bhujbal.
"Under certain circumstance, a person may hold a certain belief. By repeatedly thinking about an issue in a particular way, he begins to believe that what he is thinking is right. But it need not necessarily be the truth," Vakil explained.
"Results of such tests can be used to get admissible evidence, can be collaborated with other evidence or to support other evidence. But if the result of this test is not admitted in a court, it cannot be used to support any other evidence obtained the course of routine investigation."
Criminal lawyer Majeed Memon, who filed a PIL in the Telgi case on behalf of social activist Anna Hazare, said, "The court had given permission to conduct these tests. Only it can decide the admissibility of the test result and other related evidence. Such reports can be used as evidence or to support other evidence."
Another criminal lawyer Sham Keswani has a different view. "Such tests don't have any legal validity. They can only assist the police investigation. In the Telgi case, the court permitted the tests to help the probe.
But, in case a person is not affected by the chemical, he might take some wrong names (to mislead investigators). The results of such tests can be used to support other evidence," he said.
