Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the accused should have been subjected to brain mapping/ Narcoanalysis, polygraph test http://www.judis.nic.in to find out the real truth and admittedly, the investigation has not been proceeded on the said lines obviously with a view to favour the accused and other important personalities.

15. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that before the Principal Seat of this Court, one D.Ganesan, State Co-ordinator of Revolutionary - Students Youth Front, Tamil Nadu, had filed W.P.No.11333 of 2018 praying for appointment of One Man Commission as to the very same incident and also made allegations against on-going CBCID investigation and however, the present writ petition is altogether for a different prayer filed purely in public interest and though the present writ petition came to be filed after the said writ petition, it is not a bar.

53. The learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments also made a complaint that the Investigating Agency did not take any steps to conduct Narcoanalysis, polygraph test, despite non-objection on the part of the concerned accused. No material whatsoever has been placed before this Court as to http://www.judis.nic.in the non-objection of the concerned accused as to the said aspect. The conduct of Narcoanalysis, polygraph test during the course of the investigation is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraphs 102, 103, 104, 106 and 254: