10 June 2025 Legal Updates

ACCUSED HAS RIGHT TO VOLUNTARILY UNDERGO NARCO-ANALYSIS TEST SUBJECT TO COURT'S PERMISSION: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 9, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Case Background

This case arose from a missing person complaint where a husband (Amlesh Kumar) was accused of dowry harassment and suspected involvement in his wife's disappearance. The wife went missing in August 2022, and the husband's family members were charged under various sections of the IPC including dowry-related offenses.

Key Legal Issue

Whether a High Court can accept a police officer's submission to conduct narco-analysis tests on accused persons during bail proceedings, and the broader legal framework governing such tests?

Supreme Court's Analysis

Three Key Legal Principles Established

1. Involuntary Narco-Analysis is Prohibited

• Courts cannot accept submissions for conducting narco-analysis tests on accused persons
• Such tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination and personal liberty)
• Results of involuntary tests cannot be used as evidence

2. Limited Evidentiary Value

• Even voluntary narco-analysis test reports cannot be the sole basis for conviction
• Any information discovered through such tests can only be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
• Supporting evidence is mandatory for conviction

3. No Absolute Right to Voluntary Tests

• Accused persons don't have an "indefeasible right" to demand narco-analysis tests
• Courts must consider totality of circumstances, free consent, and appropriate safeguards
• The appropriate stage for such tests is during trial when leading evidence in defence

Important Guidelines for Voluntary Tests

The Court reiterated strict safeguards from the landmark Selvi v. State of Karnataka case:

• Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate
• Accused must have legal representation
• Independent agency should conduct the test
• Full medical documentation required

Main Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order that had accepted the police's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons. The Court held this was unconstitutional and violated established legal principles.

RIGHT TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION IS NOT MERE STATUTORY RIGHT; ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCUSED: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Facts of the Case

Appellant (Nagarajan) was neighbor of deceased woman (Smt. Mariammal). On the night of July 11, 2003, the Appellant entered deceased's room and attempted to outrage her modesty while hugging her. The deceased's mother-in-law intervened and scolded appellant, who fled from the scene. Next day deceased found missing with her infant daughter. The deceased went to nearby field with infant (1.5 years old) and committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds. She also administered poison to her infant child. Both mother and child died.

Trial Court (Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul)

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 354 (outraging modesty) and Section 448 (trespassing) IPC, and acquitted him under Section 306 IPC on the grounds that the evidence showed trespassing and hugging, but no instigation for suicide

High Court (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench)

The Hogh Court dismissed the appellants appeal under Sections 354 and 448 and suo motu initiated criminal revision proceedings. The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) and enhanced the punishment of the appellant.

Supreme Court

On appeal the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction under Section 306 (Abetment to suicide) and confirmed the conviction under Sections 354 and 448.

Legal Principles Established

1. No Enhancement of Sentence in Accused's Appeal:

• In appeal filed by accused, appellate court cannot enhance sentence while maintaining conviction.

2. Reformatio in Peius Principle:

• Latin maxim meaning "change for the worse". You cannot change the sentence of the appellant for the worse in appeals.

3. Prohibition:

• Appellant cannot be placed in worse position as result of filing appeal. This is a part of natural justice and fair procedure