A.

RESEARCH DESIGN

1. Introduction

If we look at the history of investigation, physical coercion (third degree

practice) has been preferred to painstaking and time-consuming inquiry in the
belief that direct methods produce quick results. Sir James Stephens, writing in
1883, rationalizes a grisly example of "third degree" practices by the
Investigations of India: ‘It is far pleasanter to sit comfortably in the shade
rubbing red pepper, in a poor devil's eyes than to go about in the sun hunting
up evidence.’

With the advancement of science and technology, following sophisticated

methods of interrogation are being used recently:

i) Narcoanalysis or Truth Serum Test,

ii) Polygraph or Lie Detector Test, and
ii) P-300 or the Brain Mapping test.

This research paper is confined to the various aspects of Brain Mapping

technique only.
This test was developed and patented in 1995 by neurologist Dr. Lawrence A.
Farwell, Director and Chief Scientist “Brain Wave Science”, IOWA. In this
method, called the “Brain-wave finger printing”; the accused is first
interviewed and interrogated to find out whether he is concealing any
information. Then sensors are attached to the subject’s head and the person is
seated before a computer monitor. He is then shown certain images or made
to hear certain sounds. The sensors monitor electrical activity in the brain and
register P300 waves, which are generated only if the subject has connection
with the stimulus i.e. picture or sound. Dr. Farwell has published that a
MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electro
Encephalographic Response) is initiated in the accused when his brain
recognizes noteworthy information pertaining to the crime. These stimuli are
called the “target stimuli”. It noteworthy to mention unlike Narcotest no drugs
having capability of making subject semi conscious is administered to the
accused under gonging Brain Mapping.

1
The main provision regarding crime investigation and trial in the India are:
Art. 20(3) of Constitution of India. It deals with the privilege against self
incrimination. It reads as “No person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be witness against himself”.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does allow experts’ opinions in
certain cases. It reads as “When the court has to form an opinion upon a point
of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger
impression, the opinions upon that point or persons especially skilled in such
foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger
impressions are relevant.” Section 27 of the Act deals with the aspect as to
how much of information received from an accused may be proved. Section 27
states as “when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information of received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of
a Investigating officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be
proved”.

Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 of the Act pertains to

examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of the
Investigating officer. This section authorises an examination of the arrested
person by a registered medical practitioner at the request of an Investigating
officer, if from the nature of the alleged offence or from the circumstances
under which it was alleged to have been committed, there is reasonable
ground for believing that such an examination will afford evidence. Under
section 51 forcible medical examination of the body of any accused cannot be
held without his consent. On the other hand section 54 of the Act talks about
the examination of arrested person by medical practitioner at the request of
the arrested person as a matter of right. Section 161 (2) of the Act states that
every person “is bound to answer truthfully all questions, put to him by a
police officer, other than questions, the answers to which, would have a
tendency to expose that person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture.

The legal position of applying this technique as an investigative aid raises

genuine issues like encroachment of an individual’s rights, liberties and

2
freedom. Subjecting the accused to undergo the test, as has been done by the
investigative agencies in India, is considered by many as a blatant violation of
Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and other Provisions of the Law, mainly S.161(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani1, the Supreme Court recognised the Right to
Silence and conceptualised that the phrase ‘compelled testimony’ must be
read as “evidence procured not merely by physical threats or violence but by
psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring
interrogative prolixity, overbearing and intimidatory methods and the like – not
legal penalty for violation.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948(Art. 11.1), The International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (Art. 14(3)(g) and Art. 7) ,World
Medical Association (Tokyo declaration),The Indian Medical Council
(Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002”as amended, in
the first instance does not approve such scientific techniques to be used
against an accused. Thus, much has to be debated both in scientific field as
well as in the legal field to grant the well recognised authenticity and
legitimacy to this technique in Criminal Justice System.

2. Statement of Problem

It is well settled law that though the opinions of such experts are not binding
on the Courts, it is the duty of an expert to furnish the Court with the
necessary materials so that the Court, though not an expert, may form their
own judgement upon those materials2. However making a suspect undergo the
test without his consent or without making the suspect fully understand its
purpose would be unethical, violation of mind, reputation or privacy may
amount to inflicting injury. The legal position of applying this technique as an
investigative aid raises genuine issues like encroachment of an individual’s
rights, liberties and freedom. Subjecting the accused to undergo the test, as
has been done by the investigative agencies in India, is considered by many as
a blatant violation of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. It also goes against the

1
AIR 1978 SC 1025
2
Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SC 704; AIR 1980 SC 531

3
maxim Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare that is, ‘No man, not even the
accused himself can be compelled to answer any question, which may tend to
prove him guilty of a crime, he has been accused of’. These propositions
emanate from an apprehension that if compulsory examination of an accused
were to be permitted then force and torture may be used against him to entrap
him into fatal contradictions. If the confession from the accused is derived from
any physical or moral compulsion it should stand to be rejected by the court.

It is well established that the Right to Silence has been granted to the accused
by virtue of the pronouncement in the case of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani3,
By the administration of these tests, forcible intrusion into one’s mind is being
restored to, thereby nullifying the validity and legitimacy of the Right to
Silence.

It was held in Dinesh Dalmia v. State4, and Rojo George5, that it would be
premature and unjust to exclude the results of such tests before they are even
conducted, on the ground that they are not credible. As long as they are
conducted in the presence of an expert they are held to be permissible.
Additionally these tests are audio and videotaped; therefore the Court gets a
fair look at as to how the experts arrive upon their conclusion.

Results of Brain Mapping test 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. Such tests don't have
any legal validity. They can only assist the Investigating investigation.

Therefore, the this Research Paper aims at examining the point of view of
Lawyers practicing in criminal side defending the accused, Prosecution
Lawyers & Investigating Officials and Law professor & Students on the
Constitutional aspect and evidentiary value of the information gathered
through Brain Mapping .This paper also focuses on the capability and
responsibility of our Criminal Courts and Investigating Agencies to handle the
technique of Brain Mapping and the information derived there from.
3
Supra at 1
4
2006 Cri.L.J.2401
5
Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2006 (2) KLT 197

4
3. Objectives of the Study

This researcher paper is confined to the justifiability and reliability of evidence

gathered though Brain Mapping of the accused under Constitution of India,
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In addition to the above, through this Research Paper efforts have been made
to find out the capability and responsibility of the our Investigating Agency
and Criminal Justice system in safeguarding the rights of the accused and the
steps which need to be taken to ensure complete and proper protection of the
accused undergoing the Brain Mapping Test.

4. Hypothesis

The researcher would like to place the following hypotheses to test:

 Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain Mapping violates the

rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the
constitution of India as well as right available to an accused under
section 161(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

 Our Criminal Courts and Investigation Agencies are well equipped to

handle the Brain Mapping technique and evidence gathered against
an accused by Brain Mapping is a reliable peace of evidence.

5. Methodology

Through this paper effort has been made to place the aforementioned
hypotheses to test by Imperial Research, primarily on the data collected
through Brain Mapping from the Lawyers practicing in criminal side defending
the accused, Prosecution Lawyers & Investigating Officials and the Law
Professor & Students who have been witness to and aware of the law dealing
with the proceedings of the Criminal Courts on regular and sustained basis.

5.1. Sampling

Since Research aims at examining the proposed topic of research from the
common point of view of:-

5
  Lawyers practicing in criminal side defending the accused (8 in numbers)
- herein after referred as R-1.

 Prosecution Lawyers & Investigating Officials (8 in numbers) - herein

after referred as R-2.

 Law professor & Students (8 in numbers) - herein after referred as R-3.

so same Interview Schedule was given to them to seek their response.

5.2. Locale of the Study

The sampling unit is the National Capital Territory of Delhi. All of the
Respondents were approached by the researcher directly in person

5.3. Limitation

It is pertinent to mention here that the Prosecution Lawyers & Investigating

Officials were little bit apprehensive to give their response. Research is
thankful to all Respondents for their valuable input.

5.4. Interview Schedule

For reasons time constraints, the researcher has chosen to approach the
respondents directly in the Criminal Trial Courts in National Capital territory of
Delhi and Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

The Interview Schedule consists of thirteen questions divided into four parts.
The first part consists of three close ended questions of general in nature. In
the next ten questions first part is close -ended multiple choice questions with
each question having three options wherein the Respondents were also asked
to provide the reason(s) for their response. This structure was adopted to
facilitate a quantitative as well as qualitative analysis.

6
B. COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

1. Data Analysis (Table and Graphs)

Following responses were given by R-1, R-2 and R-3 which are being
summarised hereunder both in tabular and graphical form.

1.1 Have you heard of the technique of Brain Mapping is used by

Investigating Agencies to gather the evidence against an accused?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

Table:-1.1

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 8 7 8 100 88 100

(ii) 0 1 0 0 12 0

Graphical Format of Table:-1.1

7
 100
90
80
70
60
50 i
40 ii
30
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

1.2. Do you know the technique of Brain Mapping is used by the Investigating
Agencies to gather the evidence pertaining to offence from the accused?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

Table: 1.2

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 8 7 8 100 88 100

(ii) 0 1 0 0 12 0

Graphical Format of Table:-1.2

8
100

80

60
i
40 ii

20

0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

9
1.3. Do you know the law under which the Investigating Agency can subject
the accused to the Brain mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

Table: 1.3

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 8 4 6 100 50 75

(ii) 0 4 1 0 50 13

(iii) 0 0 1 0 0 12

Graphical Format of Table:-1.3

100

80

60

40

20

0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

10
2.1 Do you think that Investigation Agencies are well equipped to gather
evidence from the accused through Brain Mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

Table: 2.1

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 1 4 2 13 50 25

(ii) 6 4 4 75 50 50

(iii) 1 0 2 12 0 25

Graphical Format of Table:-2.1

80
70
60
50
i
40
ii
30
iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

11
2.2 Do you think that the evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping is a reliable and scientifically proved peace of evidence?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

Table: 2.2

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 1 3 3 13 38 38

(ii) 7 4 5 87 50 62

(iii) 0 1 0 0 12 0

Graphical Format of Table:-2.2

90
80
70
60
50 i
40 ii
30 iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

12
2.3 Do you think that the Investigating agencies are more akin to gather
evidence through Brain Mapping instead of collecting the primary source
of evidence?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table: 2.3

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 3 4 3 38 50 38

(ii) 4 4 4 50 50 50

(iii) 1 0 1 12 0 12

Graphical Format of Table:-2.3

13
 50
45
40
35
30 i
25
ii
20
15 iii
10
5
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

2.4 Do you think that the Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping may be a primary source of evidence sufficient for conviction or
acquittal?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table: 2.4

Optio R-1 R- R % of R- % of R-2 % of R-3

n 2 -3 1

(i) 0 1 1 0 12 12

(ii) 7 7 7 88 88 88

(iii) 1 0 0 12 0 0

Graphical Format of Table: - 2..4

14
90
80
70
60
50 i
40 ii
30 iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

15
3.1 Do you think our Criminal Court is having expertise to handle the
evidence gathered against the accused through Brain Mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table: 3.1

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 7 6 6 88 75 75

(ii) 1 2 1 12 25 13

(iii) 0 0 1 0 0 12

Graphical Format of Table:-3.1

90
80
70
60
50 i
40 ii
30 iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

16
3.2. Do you think that our Criminal Courts need the help of expert to handle
the evidence gathered against the accused through Brain Mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table: 3.2

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 7 6 6 88 75 75

(ii) 1 2 1 12 25 13

(iii) 0 0 1 0 0 12

Graphical Format of Table:-3.2

90
80
70
60
50 i
40 ii
30 iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

17
4.1. Do you think subjecting the accused to Brain Mapping is legally and
constitutionally valid?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table:4.1

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 1 4 1 13 50 13

(ii) 1 0 1 12 0 12

(iii) 6 4 6 75 50 75

Graphical Format of Table :-4.1

80
70
60
50
i
40
ii
30
iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

18
4.2. Do you think that the Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping violates the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article
20(3) of the constitution of India as well as right available to an accused
under section 161(2) of code of criminal Procedure?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table:4.2

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 1 4 1 13 50 13

(ii) 1 0 1 12 0 12

(iii) 6 4 6 75 50 75

Graphical Format of Table :-4.2

80
70
60
50
i
40
ii
30
iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

19
4.3. Do you think that the Brain Mapping should be prohibited in Indian
criminal justice system?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table: 4.3

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 1 1 0 13 13 0

(ii) 6 6 4 75 75 50

(iii) 1 1 4 12 12 50

Graphical Format of Table:-4.3

80
70
60
50
i
40
ii
30
iii
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

20
 4.4. Do you think that we need special laws to regulate the use of Brain
Mapping Technique?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

Table:4.4

Option R-1 R-2 R-3 % of R-1 % of R-2 % of R-3

(i) 8 7 7 100 88 88

(ii) 0 1 1 0 12 12

(iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graphical Format of Table:-4.4

100
90
80
70
60 i
50
ii
40
iii
30
20
10
0
R-1 % of R-1 R-2 % of R-2 R-3 % of R-3

2. Interpretation

21
An overwhelming 100% of the R-1(Lawyers practicing in criminal side
defending the accused) and R-3 (Law professor & Students) and 88 % of R- 2
(Prosecution Lawyers & Investigating Officials) have indicated that they are
aware of technology of Brain Mapping and its use in by the Investigating
Agency to gather the evidence against an accused. 100 % of the R-1 and 50 %
of R-2 and 75 % of the R-3 were aware of the law under which such test can be
conducted. However only 12 % of the R-3 says that they can’t say about
existence of any such law. Thus the use of this technique in criminal justice
system is well known and substantial no of them are also aware of the law
governing the technique.

Only 13% of R-1 and 25% of R-3 says and 50 % of R-2 says that our
Investigating Agencies are well equipped to use the technology. However only
13% of R-1 and 38% of R-2 says and 38 % of R-3 says that such evidence
reliable and scientifically proved peace of evidence. When they were asked
that whether such evidence is sufficient for conviction or acquittal, none of the
R-1 and only 12% of R-2 and R-3 responded affirmatively. The striking feature
response was 88% of R-2 and R-3 said that such evidence is not sufficient for
conviction.

Thus substantial numbers of them do not consider the evidence gathered

through this technique is a reliable peace of evidence sufficient for conviction
or acquittal.

On the question of keenness of investigation Agency in taking help of the Brain

Mapping Technology the response was equally divided.

On the question of expertise of our criminal courts and need of expert body to
assist the court the response was equivalent. 88 % of R-1, 75 % of R-2 and R- 3
acknowledge the limitation of our Criminal Courts and was in the favour of
expert help.

On the question of violation of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and S.161 (2) of
Cr.P.C and legal and constitutional validity of Brain Mapping the response was
ambiguous. 75 % of R-1 and 75 % of R-3 says that they can’t say any thing in

22
this regard. However 50 % of the R –2 was in the favour that such test does not
violate the legal and constitutional rights of the Accused.

On the question of banning Brain Mapping only 13% of the R-1 and R-2 was in
the favour of Ban. None of the R-3 was in the favour of any such ban. An
overwhelming 100 % of R-1 and 88% of the R-2 and R-3 was in the favour of
special legislation to regulate the technique of Brain Mapping in the
Investigation Procedure. Thus majority of them are not in favour of banning
Brain Mapping however they feel the need of special laws on the subject.

3. Testing Hypothesis

Thus on the first hypos thesis: “Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping violates the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 20(3) of
the constitution of India as well as right available to an accused under section
161(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure” majority of the respondents (mainly on
the basis of response described in table no. 4.1 and 4.2) are silent as they
have not form any opinion in this regard thereby making the response
inconclusive.

Second hypos thesis: “Our Criminal Courts and Investigation Agencies are well
equipped to handle the Brain Mapping technique and evidence gathered
against an accused by Brain Mapping is a reliable peace of evidence” is
disproved (mainly on the basis of response described in table nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4,
3.1 and 3.2) as more than 50% of them has given a negative response.

4. Suggestions and Summations

Legal position of applying this technique as an investigative aid raises genuine

issues like encroachment of an individual’s rights, liberties and freedom.

The privilege against self-incrimination, thus, enables the maintenance of

human privacy and observance of civilized standards in the enforcement of
criminal justice. The right against forced self-incrimination, widely known as
the Right to Silence is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
Indian Constitution. The constitutional perspective under Art.20 (3) as right to
self-incrimination entrusts a protection to the accused against any extraction

23
of evidence against him. It extends the basic fundamental right to life and
personal liberty, under Art. 21, which constitutes the right to fair trial

Thus applying this technique as an investigative aid is justified till the time it
does not encroachment of an individual’s rights, liberties and freedom and it
would be premature and unjust to exclude the results of such tests before they
are even conducted, on the ground that they are not credible. We need expert
institution having credibility and expertise in scientific aspect of this
technology and other scientific method of investigation and assessable help of
such body to our criminal justice system. We also need special laws to provide
regulating the use of this technique and any misuse arising there from. Matter
pertaining to the validity of this technique as well as other scientific aid to
investigation is sub judice before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India so we shall
wait for the outcome of the same.

24
BIBLIOGRAPHY

(I).Primary:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)

Regulations, 2002.

• The data/ information collected from Brain Mapping put to: Lawyers
practicing in criminal side defending the accused, Prosecution Lawyers &
Investigating Officials and Law professor & Students.

• Law Commission Of India, 180th Report on Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India and The Right To Silence, May 2002.

(II). Secondary

• Sarkar, S.C., Sarkar’s Code of Criminal Procedure, Wadhwa and Nagpur

Law Publisher, 9th ed.,(2007)

• Sarkar, S.C., Sarkar’s Law Of Evidence, Wadhwa and Nagpur Law

Publisher, vol.1, 16th ed., Reprint (2008).

• Kaul, Satyendar K., Narco-analysis, Brain Mapping, Hypnosis & Lie

Detector Tests In Interrogation of suspects, Alia Law Agency, (2008).

• Saharay, H.K., The Constitution of India- An Analytical Approach, Eastern

Law Books, 3rd ed., (2002).

• Sharma, B.R., Scientific Criminal Investigation, Universal Law Publishing

Co., 2006 ed.

25
 • Rotunda D., Ronald, Modern Constitutional Cases and Notes, West
Publishing Co., 6th ed., (2000).

• Tony, Blackshield, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, The

Federation Press, 4th ed.(2006).
• Satyedra K. Kaul and Mohd. H. Zaidi, Narco Analysis, Brain
Mapping and Lie Detector Tests in Interrogation of Suspects,1st Edn
(2008).

Journals / Articles/ Web- Site

• Moenssens, Andre A., Narcoanalysis in Law Enforcement, The Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology, and Investagting Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Nov.
- Dec., 1961) p. 543-548, Northwestern University.

• “Is Narco-analysis a reliable science-The present legal scenario in India”

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/is-narco-analysis-a-reliable-
science-the-present-legal-scenario-in-india-334519.html

• Major General Nilendra Kumar, AVSM, VSM “Narco-Analysis: Legality and

Application in Military”

http://www.usiofindia.org/article_Oct_Dec05_7.htm

• Sekharan,P.Chandra,“Untruth Serum,

http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=976&issue_id=35

• Morgan DJ, Blackman GL, Paull JD, Wolf LJ, "Pharmacokinetics and plasma
binding of thiopental. II: Studies at cesarean section", Anesthesiology,
474–80

• Data available at http://wweek.com/html/euthanasics.html. last visited

on 21/10/2009

• Anne Bannon; Stevens, Serita Deborah (2007). The Howdunit Book of

Poisons (Howdunit). Cincinnati: Writers Digest Books.

26
 • http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/12/1580. last
visited on 21/10/2009

• http://www.petplace.com/drug-library/thiopental-pentothal/page1.aspx.
last visited on 21/10/2009

• www.manupatra.com

• www.unilawonline.com

• AIR on Line.

• Law Pack

Other Sources

• The World Medical Association, Declaration of Tokyo, Guidelines for

Physicians concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
treatment or Punishment in relation to Detention and Imprisonment.
Adopted by 29th World Medical Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975,
and Editorially revised at 170th council session, Divonne-les-bains,
France, May 2005 and 173rd council session, Divonne-les-bains, France,
May ,2006.

• The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)

Regulations, 2002”as amended.

• The International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, 1966.

Case Laws

27
Name of the Case Citation
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300
Amin v. State AIR 1958 All 293
Radha Kishan v. State of Punjab 1960 Cr.lj 847
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808
R.K. Dalmia v. State AIR 1962 SC 1821
U.S. v. Solomon 372 US 293 (1963)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) US 436
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025
Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 625
R v. Hebert (1990)2 SCR 151
Daubert v. Merrle Dow 509 US 579 (1993)
Pharmaceuticals
Dinesh Dalmia v. State 2006 CriLj 2401

28
ANNEXURE:

Questionnaire for empirical research on empirical study on Brain

Mapping: Constitutional and Legal aspect

(Prepared by Md. Naushad Alam, LL.M, Final Year, Faculty of Law, University of
Delhi, Delhi-110 007)

Disclaimer: the questionnaire is aimed solely at collecting information for

academic purpose and the information provided herein shall not be used in
any legal or quasi-legal proceedings.

Interview Schedule:

1.1 Have you heard of the technique of Brain Mapping test is used by
Investigating Agencies to gather the evidence against an accused?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

1.2 Do you know the technique of Brain Mapping is used by the

Investigating Agencies to gather the evidence pertaining to offence from
the accused?
(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

1.3 Do you know the law under which the Investigating Agency can subject
the accused to the Brain mapping?
(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

2.1 Do you think that Investigation Agencies are well equipped to gather
evidence from the accused through Brain Mapping?
(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

29
 (iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

2.2 Do you think that the evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping is a reliable and scientifically proved peace of evidence?
(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

2.3 Do you think that the Investigating agencies are more akin to gather
evidence through Brain Mapping instead of collecting the primary source
of evidence?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

2.4 Do you think that the Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping may be a primary source of evidence sufficient for conviction or
acquittal?

(i) Yes ( )

30
 (ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

3.1 Do you think our Criminal Court is having expertise to handle the
evidence gathered against the accused through Brain Mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

3.2 Do you think that our Criminal Courts need the help of expert to handle
the evidence gathered against the accused through Brain Mapping?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

31
4.1. Do you think subjecting the accused to brain mapping is legally and
constitutionally valid?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

4.2. Do you think that the Evidence gathered against an accused by Brain
Mapping violates the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article
20(3) of the constitution of India as well as right available to an accused
under section 161(2) of code of criminal Procedure?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

4.3. Do you think that the Brain Mapping should be prohibited in Indian
criminal justice system?

(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

32
 State the reason(s):

I.

II.

4.4 Do you think that we need special laws to regulate the use of Brain
Mapping Technique?
(i) Yes ( )

(ii) No ( )

(iii) Can’t say ( )

State the reason(s):

I.

II.

33