Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramachandra Baliga vs The State By Barke Police Station on 12 June, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P NO.7613 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMACHANDRA BALIGA
S/O PANDURANGA BALIGA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT "LAXMIKUNJ"
COELHO LANE
BEHIND STERLING CHAMBERS
PVS KALAKUNJ ROAD
KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY BARKE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANGALURU
ALSO REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. M. NARESH SHENOY
S/O LATE M. NAMDEV SHENOY
AGED 44 YEARS
2
V.T. TEMPLE ROAD
MANGALURU-575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R1,
SRI: ARUNA SHYAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED
IN CRL. RP. NO.127/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., D.K., MANGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2016
PASSED IN C.C NO.2097/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
J.M.F.C. (III COURT), MANGALURU; CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THIS PETITION BY DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
UNDERGO NARCO ANALYSIS TEST AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of two orders, one passed by the learned Magistrate, JMFC (III Court) at Mangaluru in CC No.2097/2016 and another one passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru in Crl.R.P.No.127/2016, in rejecting the application filed by the investigating officer on 27.06.2016 seeking permission of the 3 Trial Court to conduct brain mapping, polygraph test and Narco Analysis test on respondent No.2 who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the said case. The said application was filed by the State through investigating officer which came to be rejected by the Trial Court mainly relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Crl) 1 between Selvi and Others Vs State of Karnataka.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, defacto- complainant by name Ramachandra Baliga (petitioner herein) has preferred the Revision Petition before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.127/2016. The revisional Court also relying upon the said decision has rejected the said revision petition and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended before this Court that he is not able to find any decision differing the principles laid down in Selvi's case. He further submits that still it is a debatable point that, if a person conspires with another to commit an offence, if his intention and plan are hidden in his mind and brain then, it is 4 very difficult for the investigating agency to extract the same and place the truth before the Court. Further, he contends that by way of scientific methods, the investigation has to be conducted with equipments advanced that is to say by means of examination of the accused by way of brain mapping, polygraph and Narco Analysis test without affecting the body and without effecting the health of a person by taking utmost care. By such scientific methods, one can easily find out the truth from the accused.
5. Though the arguments of the learned Counsel is very attractive, but the Supreme Court in the above said Selvi's case, has thoroughly considered all the above said aspects and the said case is mainly concentrated on the consent and voluntary- ness of the statement of accused to subject him to undergo any scientific medical examination as noted above. Of course, in a Criminal Procedure Code certain provisions are inserted so that the Court can direct even the accused to undergo certain medical examination like blood test etc., but so far as the statement of the accused is concerned, as already submitted by the learned 5 Counsel the law is not yet so developed so that the Court can mandate the accused to undergo the said medical examination without his consent, which almost replaces the voluntary statement of the accused.
6. Hence on the above said facts and circumstances, though the decisions cited by the learned Counsel are nearer to jurisdiction and the permission granted by the Courts for such Narco Anaylsis medical test, but he failed to submit before the Court by producing any ruling to show that without the consent of accused, whether such test can be conducted by the investigating agency and whether Court can grant such permission. On the other hand, the above noted Selvi's case directly on the point where in the Hon'ble Apex Court invariably and after thoroughly going through the earlier decisions of its own has come to the conclusion that without consent, no such scientific medical examination can be done on the accused. In the above said facts and circumstances and the legal dictum laid down by the Apex Court, there is no room for this Court to 6 interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court.
7. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the arguments of the learned Counsel is thought provoking and the same can be if possible be addressed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the event, if the petitioner chooses to prefer any appeal before the Supreme Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-