JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The present applicant is presently facing a trial under Sections 302/354 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which is presently under way before the Fast Track Court/Special Judge, POCSO/Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The charge against the present applicant is that he had molested the eleven years old girl and thereafter burnt her alive. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant. 2. Earlier on 01.07.2014, applicant filed an application for conducting a Narco Analysis Test on him, this application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on 17.07.2014 by a detailed order. 3. As of now, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the applicant has also cross-examined defence witness i.e., PW-1 Smt. Lakshmi who is the mother of the present applicant/accused. The applicant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. At such a belated stage, an application was moved by the applicant before the court below on 16.11.2015 stating that a Narco Analysis Test be conducted on him for which he had volunteered earlier. This application has also been rejected by the court below on 27.11.2015. The applicant challenges the validity of the said order and submits that being an accused he has volunteered for a Narco Analysis Test and this has been done by him in order to prove his innocence. This application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on ground that it is highly belated. Hence, the present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant challenged the order dated 27.11.2015 and argues that the purpose of a criminal trial is to reach the truth of the matter and since the applicant claims innocence and claims his Narco Analysis Test by which he can prove his innocence, in the interest of justice, it must be conducted. 5. This plea is being opposed by the learned Government Advocate and submits that it is not the applicant’s prerogative to choose a method of investigation. 5. This plea is being opposed by the learned Government Advocate and submits that it is not the applicant’s prerogative to choose a method of investigation. Narco Analysis Test is merely a tool for the investigating agency, it is not a prerogative or the right of an accused to take an order from the Court which in effect directing the Investigating agency or the prosecution as the case might be, to conduct its investigation or trial in a particular manner. Moreover, this is purely a dilatory tactic at the hands of the applicant. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that since he himself volunteered for the Narco Analysis Test, the embargo contained in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India whereby “any person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself” does not apply. Narco Analysis Test is not being imposed by him by the prosecution but he himself has volunteered for the test and purely in the interest of justice, this must be conducted. 7. The first aspect of the matter is that this application has been filed by the applicant at the fag end of the trial, at the time when the entire prosecution witnesses have been examined. The accused himself was examined under Section 313 CrPC and thereafter his sole defence witness was also examined. At such a belated stage, there was absolutely no occasion to move such an application. Therefore, the application itself is at a highly belated stage and clearly on the ground of delay itself the application was rightly been rejected by the trial court. 8. At this stage though it must be stated that the applicant had even previously (after the examination of the prosecution witnesses), had moved an application on 01.07.2014 stating that a Narco Analysis Test be conducted on him, this application was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2014 by the court below on ground that it is not an appropriate stage for moving such a prayer and it shall be examined once the accused examine the evidence. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that now the Court has to see whether the applicant has any justifiable right or reasonable right to seek such a relief either from the Court or from the Investigating agency. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that now the Court has to see whether the applicant has any justifiable right or reasonable right to seek such a relief either from the Court or from the Investigating agency. On this aspect in a seminal judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Selvi & others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2010 SC 1974 after analyzing each aspect at great length, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized its findings which narrates the full reproduction which are contained in paragraph nos. 221, 222, 223 which read as under:- “221. In our considered opinion, the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques [Narco Analysis Test] violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’. This is because the under-lying rationale of the said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence. This Court has recognized that the protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during an investigation. The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual’s choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible ‘conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue.’ The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a ‘testimonial’ character and they cannot be categorized as material evidence. 222. We are also of the view that forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of ‘substantive due process’ which is required for restraining personal liberty. Such a violation will occur irrespective of whether these techniques are forcibly administered during the course of an investigation or for any other purpose since the test result could also expose a person to adverse consequences of a non-penal nature. The impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation of Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The impugned techniques cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation of Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such an expansive interpretation is not feasible in light of the rule of ‘ejusdem generis’ and the considerations which govern the interpretation of statutes in relation to scientific advancements. We have also elaborated how the compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It would also amount to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms. Furthermore, placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the ‘right to fair trial’. Invocations of the compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the ‘right against self-incrimination’. 223. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The National Human Rights Commission has published ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie-Detector Test) on an Accused’ in 2000. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the ‘Narcoanalysis technique’ and the ‘Brain Electrical Activation Profile’ test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below: (i) No Lie-Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below: (i) No Lie-Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test. (ii) If the accused volunteers for the Lie-Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer. (iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. (iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer. (v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a ‘confessional’ statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police. (vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation. (vii) The actual recording of the Lie-Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer. (viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.” 10. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court was conscious of the fact that it was examining many aspects in criminal jurisprudence for the first time and owing to the dearth of Indian decisions on the subject, it also looked towards precedents from foreign judgments which they have dealt with the application of Polygraph examination, Narco Analysis Technique and BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile). While doing that, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered all the aspects and had also examined such cases. It is true that the question which are presently before this Court were not before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Here an accused himself has volunteered, at the fag end of the trial, for being examination of a Narco Analysis Test. It is true that the question which are presently before this Court were not before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Here an accused himself has volunteered, at the fag end of the trial, for being examination of a Narco Analysis Test. But while discussing the larger issues which were before it and while giving account of various foreign judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court had also touched upon this fact as well which is presently before us and which we need to refer in the present case i.e., the technique of Narco Analysis Test which reads as under:- “47. It is also important to be aware of the limitations of the ‘narcoanalysis’ technique. It does not have an absolute success rate and there is always the possibility that the subject will not reveal any relevant information. Some studies have shown that most of the drug-induced revelations are not related to the relevant facts and they are more likely to be in the nature of inconsequential information about the subjects’ personal lives. It takes great skill on part of the interrogators to extract and indentify information which could eventually prove to be useful. While some persons are able to retain their ability to deceive even in the hypnotic state, others can become extremely suggestible to questioning. This is especially worrying, since investigators who are under pressure to deliver results could frame questions in a manner that prompts incriminatory responses. Subjects could also concoct fanciful stories in the course of the ‘hypnotic stage’. Since the responses of different individuals are bound to vary, there is no uniform criteria for evaluating the efficacy of the ‘narcoanalysis’ technique.” 11. In the above judgment there is a reference to State v. Lindemuth, 56 NM 237 (1952), wherein the testimony of psychiatrist was not admitted when he wanted to show that the answers given by a defendant while under the influence of sodium pentothal supported the defendant’s plea of innocence in a murder case. The trial court’s refusal to admit such testimony was endorsed by the appellate court, and it was noted. The trial court’s refusal to admit such testimony was endorsed by the appellate court, and it was noted. “Until the use of the drug as a means of procuring the truth from people under its influence is accorded general scientific recognition, we are unwilling to enlarge the already immense field where medical experts, apparently equally qualified, express such diametrically opposed views on the same facts and conditions, to the despair of the court reporter and the bewilderment of the fact-finder.” The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the trial court refused to admit such testimony which was also endorsed by the appellate court. 12. There is also a reference of other judgments of American Courts such as in Lawrence M. Dugan v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 333 SW 2d. 755 (1960), where the defendant had been given a truth-serum test by Psychiatrist employed by him yet the trial court refused to admit the Psychiatrist testimony which supported the case truthfulness of the defendant’s statement of innocence. Again this testimony which was in the shape of Narco Analysis Test and in favour of the defendant was not admitted as evidence by the trial court, a decision which was again affirmed by the appellate court. There is a reference of other decisions on this aspect as well. Again in other point of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed which reads as under:- “130. It is quite evident that the narcoanalysis technique involves a testimonial act. A subject is encouraged to speak in a drug-induced state, and there is no reason why such an act should be treated any differently from verbal answers during an ordinary interrogation. In one of the impugned judgments, the compulsory administration of the narcoanalysis technique was defended on the ground that at the time of conducting the test, it is not known whether the results will eventually prove to be inculpatory or exculpatory. We have already rejected this reasoning. We see no other obstruction to the proposition that the compulsory administration of the narcoanalysis technique amounts to ‘testimonial compulsion’ and thereby triggers the protection of Article 20(3).” 13. We have already rejected this reasoning. We see no other obstruction to the proposition that the compulsory administration of the narcoanalysis technique amounts to ‘testimonial compulsion’ and thereby triggers the protection of Article 20(3).” 13. In view thereof, a law as it stands today is that the evidence produced before the court in the shape or under the process of Narco Analysis technique is not a full proof evidence particularly now in the present case where the evidence will not be given before the court from the side of the prosecution but on the insistence of the defence as whether it is inculpatory of exculpatory evidence, it would not amount to any benefit being given to the prosecution or to the defence. Therefore, at such a belated stage again, there is absolutely no purpose of such an evidence. 14. There is another aspect to this matter which is that in our system of adversarial criminal jurisprudence in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there are any loopholes in the case of the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to take care of that and amend or rectify it at an appropriate stage. It is not given to the defence to point out anomalies or weaknesses in the case of the prosecution and get an order from the Court. The present system gives a right to an accused both under Section 313 CrPC as well as under Section 315 CrPC to remain quite as burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the present applicant. 15. In view thereof, the application under Section 482 CrPC stands dismissed.