Accused Can Seek Narco Test as Defence Evidence: Raj HC

Accused May Voluntarily Undergo Narco-Analysis Test as Defence Evidence Under Section 233 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court allowed an accused husband, on trial under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test at the defence stage. Section 233 CrPC gives an accused who is not acquitted under Section 232 an indefeasible right to lead defence evidence, and refusing a scientific technique that Selvi permits on a voluntary basis would deprive him of his right to defend himself (paras 14-16). The trial court's refusal was set aside (para 17).

Key holdings

Section 233 CrPC gives an accused not acquitted under Section 232 an indefeasible right to present defence evidence (para 14).

A narco-analysis test is a scientific technique recognised by law, used to corroborate evidence, even if not binding (para 14).

Section 315 CrPC and Article 20(3) protect the accused's choice to give evidence voluntarily in his own defence (para 15).

Selvi permits voluntary administration of such techniques; the Court left the test's degree of relevance open (paras 13, 16).

Jasveersingh Jat, upholding an order allowing an accused's request for such tests, applied directly (paras 7, 12).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, husband of the deceased, is facing trial under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC in Sessions Case No. 127/2013 before an Additional Sessions Judge at Jodhpur (para 2). After the prosecution and defence witnesses were examined, he applied at the Section 233 CrPC stage to submit himself to a narco-analysis test and bring its report on record as part of his defence; the trial court rejected the application on 13.08.2018 (paras 2-3). He challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC (para 1). Respondent No. 2 contended that any such test was for the prosecution to seek and that the accused could depose at trial instead, citing the Delhi High Court in Sidhu Yadav; the State also opposed (paras 8-11).

Court's Findings

The Court held Jasveersingh Jat directly applicable (para 12). It noted that Selvi leaves room for the voluntary administration of these techniques in criminal justice, subject to safeguards; the passage it quoted adds that the results by themselves cannot be admitted, though material later discovered with their help can be, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (para 13). Section 233 CrPC creates an indefeasible right for an accused not acquitted under Section 232 to present evidence in support of his defence (para 14). Even if a narco-analysis test may not bind the result of the trial, it is a scientific technique recognised by law and used by prosecution agencies and courts to corroborate the main evidence, so refusing it at the appropriate stage would harm the cause of justice and violate the Section 233 right (para 14). Section 315 CrPC makes the accused a competent defence witness and, consistently with Article 20(3), lets him give evidence if he chooses; here he volunteered (para 15). Denial would be a travesty of justice (para 15). The Court did not assess the test's degree of relevance (para 16).

Legal Principle

An accused who is not acquitted under Section 232 CrPC has an indefeasible right under Section 233 to adduce evidence in his defence. His voluntary request to undergo a narco-analysis test at that stage, a technique Selvi permits on a voluntary basis, cannot be refused, since refusal would deprive him of the right to defend himself (paras 14-16).

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Rajasthan v. Jasveersingh Jat 2017(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2079
Followed Discussed at ¶ 7, 12
Relied on by the petitioner: the defence stage is the only stage at which the accused may speak before the court; a trial court order allowing the accused's request to undergo invasive scientific tests, as assisting the truth and a fair opportunity of defence, was upheld in revision. Held directly applicable to the present case.
Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13, 16
No individual may be forcibly subjected to these techniques, but their voluntary administration in criminal justice is permitted with safeguards; test results by themselves are not admissible, though material later discovered with their help may be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Read by the Court as allowing the accused to submit voluntarily to a scientific technique in support of his defence.
Sidhu Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of NCT of Delhi CRL.M.C. 1150/2017, Delhi High Court, dated 21.03.2017
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10
Cited by respondent No. 2: an accused's request for a narco-analysis test was refused, since such test results are not admissible and an exculpatory statement cannot be the basis of acquittal; the Court instead followed Jasveersingh Jat.

Statutory Provisions

Accused May Voluntarily Undergo Narco-Analysis Test as Defence Evidence Under Section 233 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Statutory Provisions

Related Judgments

Forced Narcoanalysis, Polygraph and BEAP Tests Violate Articles 20(3) and 21: Supreme Court

Consent to Narco-Analysis Test Can Be Withdrawn Before It Is Administered: Rajasthan High Court