英语论文网

custody.

A comprehensive definition of compulsion was established in the case of Nandini Satpathy where Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer advocated an expansive interpretation of the phrase ‘testimonial compulsion’. He said that it is evidence procured “not merely by hysical threats of violence” but also “by psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative prolixity, over bearing and intimidatory methods, and the like ”(emphasis supplied) The next question debated is the connotation of 'compulsion' under Article 20(3) and its reflection in Section 161(2)-In Kathi Kalu Oghad's case, Sinha, C.J., expounded on the meaning of duress by quoting the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt in which 'duress' was explained as follows :

“Duress is where a man is compelled to do an act by injury, beating or unlawful imprisonment (sometimes called duress in strict sense) or by the threat of being killed, suffering some grevious bodily harm, or being unlawfully imprisoned (sometimes called menace, or duress per minus). Duress also includes threatening, beating or imprisonment of the 'wife, parent or child of a person.”

However, the Supreme Court has allowed diplomatic tactics to extract information, in the case of Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra [41] the SC held that if a trap was laid and if the accused talks by himself he cannot claim protection under Art.20 (3). It can therefore be inferred that Compulsion has to be a physical objective act and not the state of mind of the person making the statement, except where the mind has been so conditioned by come extraneous process as to render the making of the statement involuntary and, therefore extorted. [42]

Administration of the three tests and their Legal Position

The Kerala High Court in the case of Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent [43] , Police held that though being subjected to narco analysis falls foul of the constitutional guarantees under art. 20 (3), the procedure in itself is not testimonial compulsion and does not violate the provisions of art. 20 (3), it was also concomitantly averred that narco analysis does not fall outside the ambit of just, reasonable and fair procedure guaranteed by the provisions of art. 21 of the Constitution. With regard to the apprehensions regarding the physical and mental side effects voiced by the appellants the Court affirmed that the experts who conduct the evaluation will have to certify that the suspect is fit to undergo narco analysis examination and thereafter only the test will be conducted. It also directed the video taping of the entire procedure. That apart, it stated the necessity of such tests in light of modern and sophisticated techniques used by criminals and that any such procedure conducted under the supervision of the expert shall not fall foul of the enshrined fundamental rights.

In Dinesh Dalmia v. State by SPI, CBI [44] , Madras High Court took a tough stance stating that test such as narco analysis and brain mapping did not violate the constitutional provisions and held that subjecting an accused to undergo such scientific tests will not amount to breaking his silence by force. The contention of testimonial compulsion pleaded by the defendant was rejected by the courts and further, it was held that the ambit of testimonial compulsion in Nandini Satpaty case extended only to third degree methods and not to scientific本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。