Self Incrimination And DDT Tests

Deeksha Sharma, LLM, Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa Campus

ABSTRACT

The right against incrimination is a right mentioned in our constitution under Article 20(3) which protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves but the advancement of technology has led to an interplay between the right against incrimination and the use of the Deceptive Detection Test (DDT) in Indian legal system. However, advancements in forensic science, including techniques like polygraph tests, narco-analysis, and brain mapping (P-300 tests), have introduced complex legal and ethical debates. These DDTs are employed by investigating agencies to extract concealed information, often aiding in discovering crucial evidence.

This paper deals with provisions surrounding DDT tests which include provisions under The Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure1973, Bharatiya Nagrik Sukarsha Sanhita 2023, Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Bharatiya Sakhya Adhiniyam 2023. It includes interpretations of court in cases like State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghat, Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, and Dinesh Dalmia v. State of Madras, highlighting judicial perspectives on self-incrimination and the limits of DDTs and Selvi v State of Karnataka judgment where the supreme court established that these tests cannot be conducted on an accused without their consent.

Furthermore, the paper discusses recent trends and case laws post-Selvi judgment that reveal inconsistencies in judicial applications. Despite the clear mandate for consent given in the Selvi judgment, some courts have denied DDTs even when requested by the accused, citing concerns about voluntariness and admissibility. Criticism of DDTs includes concerns about their reliability, potential coercion, and infringement of individual rights, emphasizing the need for stringent safeguards.

In conclusion, while these tests play a vital role in criminal investigations, their use must be in such a way that it balances fundamental rights. The current legal position clearly mandates that DDT should only be conducted with the accused’s consent. This paper calls for a clearer statutory framework to regulate DDTs and ensure that they are used ethically while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.