 it's up to the chest height. Yeah. Good evening, friends. Keeping the tradition of doing the sessions on the weekend, we had requested Mr. Kiya Sriniri, who is a resource person in the CMR University. He has also done sessions with us earlier. The miscibility of foreign sex science in India was the right against the self-incrimination. It's today's session. And those who want to see the earlier sessions done by Kiya Sriniri, they can watch it on the Beyond Law CLC YouTube channel, or they can subscribe so that they can get the pop-up for every sessions we carry forward next time. Over to you, Mr. Kiya Sriniri. Thank you for accepting our invite. Thank you. Thank you so much because it's always a pleasure. In fact, I am more than a resource person. I'm more of a follower for Beyond Law having watched so many of your sessions. In fact, there are so many great resource courses talking on so many great topics that it is of an unending interest to most of us. Most of our students also keep watching it. And it's a pleasure, as always, to be addressing on this platform. Now, the topic for today, like Vikas said, is as regards with the admissibility of forensic evidence. Now, this is one area which is a little tricky, in fact, in certain respects. But then before we get into the definitive aspects of forensic evidence and admissibility of forensic evidence, we just look at some of the fundamentals. Now, what we mean by forensic evidence, primarily, is something we need to look at. Because forensic evidence, the understanding of the concept itself is a little tricky because almost all evidence can be forensic evidence and some evidence cannot be forensic evidence actually. Basically, what I mean to address during this session is to refer to forensic evidence in terms of scientific evidence. Because this is the basis for what we generally understand to be forensic evidence. Science comes into the picture either in two respects. Now, there can be a scientific method of collecting the evidence. This refers to the kind of evidence which we know as trace evidence. It can be something, for example, like fingerprints or DNA or any of those hair or other samples which are collected from a current scene or from the victim or from the body or some other means. Usually, there is an element of science involved in the collection of such evidence. And subsequently, there is a bit of science involved in the analysis of the evidence as well. Now, these kinds of evidence we can term as forensic evidence. Or on the other hand, where we are talking about mere physical evidence, sometimes these need not necessarily have anything to do with science. This might be objects of interest which are of relevance to a particular dispute or a particular case at hand. However, if such objects subsequently are subject to scientific analysis, then they can also be termed as forensic evidence. Now, what is the uniqueness of this forensic evidence in terms of the fact that we are talking about the admissibility of forensic evidence? The question that naturally comes up is, why is there a question on admissibility? Why are we not talking about it in terms of other evidence generally? We are talking specifically about forensic evidence in terms of its admissibility because of the way in which this evidence is presented during the course of a trial. Now, forensic evidence, by its very nature, like I said earlier, it has a scientific background. Either the recovery of the evidence or the analysis of the evidence is done in a scientific manner. And none of the persons involved in the trial process, either the judges or the ad hocates are scientific persons or persons who are specifically trained in the fields in which such evidence might have been found. So it necessarily follows that this evidence requires the involvement of a third person. Now, under the evidence act, we have a separate set of rules and laws that are put in place to deal with third persons. Usually third persons are not allowed to have any say in the process, any opinion or any views expressed by the third persons are considered to be hearsay and they are not considered to be evidence at all. However, in this case, we take the opinion of third persons as being relevant because in evidence law, we look at evidence from the perspective of its relevance. So we look at the opinions of these third persons as relevant because they fall into the category of what we call experts. So this is the uniqueness of forensic evidence which requires us to question whether such forensic evidence can be admissible in a court of law or not. So from that perspective, we look at this topic and in looking at this topics, I want to look at it from in a very organized manner. So what we'll do is firstly, we will take a look at the concept of forensic evidence in terms of its value. And then we will look at the concept of admissibility as it is discussed under the evidence act. And then from there, we'll move on to looking at two specific aspects of forensic evidence. Now, because we have also an added corollary here to this particular topic if you observe, we say vis-a-vis article 20 clause three. Article 20 clause three comes into the picture because there are two aspects of forensic evidence which have relevance to the concept of self-incrimination. Now one, when it comes to trace evidence which is recovered on the basis of a voluntary confessional made by an accused, we find that such evidence, the admissibility of such evidence is has been in question, although the law by now has been set in definitively the answer by the Supreme Court. That is one aspect of it. The second aspect of it is where scientific means are used to procuring information from the witness himself rather the accused himself through eliciting the information by means of certain tests which are known as DDTs or deception detection tests. This can be either a simple polygraph or something which is called brain mapping or narco analysis. There are many forms of such tests that are available today. Those also are tests which fall under the realm of article 20 clause three because those tests also can be called as self-incriminatory in nature. So these are the two aspects of forensic evidence which fall under article 20 clause three which I want to examine at a later stage. But to begin with before understanding the concept of admissibility before talking about the notion of admissibility with respect to forensic evidence. We first need to gather an idea as regards to what is the value of this evidence. Why do we need forensic evidence? Now I don't want to go too deep into what is forensic evidence, how it is important. We are not talking about the importance and significance. What I do want to talk about is the value of it. In terms of where is it keeps to? Of course, we all as advocates agree that forensic evidence is important under criminal justice system. But if you look at it in terms of value, there are a couple of things we need to understand. Forensic, the concept of forensic evidence has behind it certain valuable principles which tell us why it becomes significant. The primary principle is called as the principle of individuality which means that every piece of evidence that we find as its individual characteristic. We know that of course in terms of maybe fingerprint evidence, if you talk about every individual is supposed to have a separate and distinct fingerprint. Similarly, any object that is found evidence on a crime scene, the principle of individuality says it is individual and identifiable. Then there's another principle called as the Locard principle, which was given to us by a notable person called Edmund Locard. And Locard said that whenever two objects come in to contact with each other, they always leave a trace on each other. So this is known as the Locard's exchange principle. Then there are several other principles like the principle of progressive chain, principle of comparison, which says that if there are two objects that can be compared to each other, they must have an inherent similarity. Finally, ending with a very important principle, of forensic evidence, it is a very simple statement which says facts don't lie. It is the discovery of facts which is the objective of forensic evidence. Coming back to the question of value, as far as what its value is in the criminal justice system, we look at it from the perspective of two stages. Number one, in terms of investigation, of course, like we just discussed, there are these several immutable principles of forensic science that tell us why this particular kind of evidence is extremely important for us in terms of conducting an investigation. So as far as criminal investigations are concerned, forensic evidence is of immense value. They can help with the progression of the investigation in the right direction up to the catching of the culprit. Because the most important objective of an investigating officer, especially as regards with the forensic evidence, is for him to be able to find any evidence, either trace evidence or physical evidence, which can connect the accused to the crime scene to the crime. So if this connection is possible, then solving the case becomes really easy for that investigating officer, which is why if you look at these principles, the principle of individuality, the principle of exchange, these are the principles which allow the investigating officers to make the connection between these three. And as such, forensic evidence is of immense value when we talk about the investigation of a criminal case. However, when it comes to forensic evidence, the concept of evidence comes to picture when we talk about a trial. So as far as the criminal trial is concerned, now the value of it is somewhat diminished. Because in a criminal trial, as far back as maybe in the 1960s itself, the Supreme Court of India has clarified in a very famous case called Mahmoodar's State of UP, that based solely on forensic evidence or based solely on expert testimony, it would be extremely risky to convict anyone. And subsequently, in many cases, the Supreme Court has gone on to say that as far as expert evidence is concerned, it should not be given sole reliance. It should not be considered as the only evidence to accuse a person. However, the value of it, although diminished to a certain extent, also considered lower than that of ocular evidence, maybe, or testamentary evidence or documentary evidence. The forensic evidence retains a lot of value because of one extremely important principle of criminal justice that we follow in India, which is that for an accused to become a convict, the crime has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this, seen from the other perspective, now we say that in Mahmoodar's State of UP Supreme Court has said that you cannot use forensic evidence as a sole evidence for the purpose of conviction because it will be extremely risky. But if you look at it from the other side, from the perspective of the accused, the defendant finds it extremely relevant because all he needs is a small bit of evidence that can allow him to pass a reasonable doubt upon the conviction. So which will help the accused in making his case in a criminal trial, which, of course, is the main principle behind all of this. So this is as regards to the value of forensic evidence. But we are not here to talk about the value. We are here to talk about the concept of admissibility. Now, as far as the concept of admissibility is concerned, the concept of admissibility, like I said earlier, comes into the picture because we are talking about it from the perspective of being the opinion of a third person, which is generally not permissible in a criminal trial, or in a civil case as well, because most opinions of third person are considered to be hearsay and are of no value at all. However, Section 45 to 51 provides the exception to this particular principle. Section 45 lays down that as long as the opinion that is being delivered is being delivered with respect to an issue related to either a foreign law or with respect to the analysis of the handwriting or the fingerprint or any other science, then or a language, then you can obtain the services of an expert to explain to the court what are the intricacies of this particular piece of evidence. So the expert becomes a very important component here, and which is what diminishes the value of the evidence somewhat. However, the expert is required because of the fact that none of the parties, none of the persons involved in the process are capable of finding out the nuances of these particular areas. But then the law itself is what you're saying, is not comprehensive, because the law, it is one particular section which talks about it and it merely says science, which is why we want to term all forensic evidence as scientific evidence. So the question of science is what determines the validity of the law. Now, as far as such evidence is explained in court by someone who is considered to be an expert, it will be admissible at least as a part of evidence which can be used to collaborate the other aspects of the case that is being made out against accused. Unless otherwise, it will not be used as sole evidence. Like I said earlier in Mahmood Varsar's state of repeat, it has been clarified by the Supreme Court, can be solely used as the evidence. But it is certainly important. If you are taking into consideration forensic evidence, you need the explanation or the opinion of the expert to come along. Without the opinion of the expert, the evidence is inadmissible. For instance, there has been a case. I fail to remember the case, but in this case, the fact was as such, when the signature came up for verification, the judge who was deciding the case took up both the samples of the signature and said they look similar enough. We can make an order based on it and he passed an order based on this particular assessment by himself. In the Appalachic Court, in the Supreme Court, it was held that this was not enough. The judge cannot make this analysis himself. He needs to obtain the services of an expert. So without the services of an expert, the forensic evidence becomes inadmissible. Which brings into question another very important point. Who is an expert? Or when can we call someone an expert? As far as this is concerned, there are three very important principles we need to consider. Three important qualifications, I think we need to consider while determining whether someone is an expert or not. If you look at the various different cases in which this particular concept has been dealt to it, there is a plethora of cases in which they talk about an expert. There are some cases in which, in fact, there was a very old case, a pre-independence case where a goldsmith was brought in a particular trail to verify whether a particular ornament that was found was a gold ornament or not. It was argued by the other side that this goldsmith is not an educated person. He's not someone who is trained in metallurgy or any other scientific discipline for him to be making this particular statement. But the court ruled in favor and the court said that his experience and the fact that he's a goldsmith by profession and he's won from a very long period of time because most of the times these professions in a country like India, it passes from generation to generation and he's learned the profession the hard way. And since he's been practicing the profession from a very long time, he can be considered an expert. So there were instances like this as well. However, these you can safely say are the exceptions. In general, who we consider an expert is decided on the basis of three very important. Number one is qualification. And by qualification, what I mean is educational qualification. An expert is someone who must have comprehensively studied that particular domain. For instance, if you are looking for someone who, expert who can analyze a particular poison which was used in a case, which was administered to the victim in a case by the accused. Then to study the poison, you need someone who has been trained in chemical analysis of poisons. And he must have the credentials to show for it. He must have the certificates to show for it. Only then can he be considered an expert. But then these certificates and credentials alone do not suffice. There are other aspects to it as well. The second aspect that enhances the validity of an expert is the experience. So someone who has obtained the qualification as soon as he obtains the classification does not by virtue of having studied the domain become an expert. As we all know, I am sure an expert is someone who has got immense experience. In fact, if you remember the case that I was talking about earlier, the Goldsmith, although he did not have a formal qualification on the basis of his experience, he was considered to be an expert. So experience probably is a little more important than the concept of educational qualification in terms of determining whether someone is an expert or not. And the third thing we say is expertise. Education, experience and expertise. And what is this expertise? How do we determine whether someone is through education and experience whether someone has gained the expertise or not? We can only do so by observing certain aspects of it. Most of the times, what the course we look into is whether the person has written any books pertaining to the subject. Whether the person has authored any scholarly publications in that particular domain. Whether the person has engaged in some sort of research in that particular area. These are the things that can prove expertise of an expert in that particular domain. So these are the three things that are looked for. Basically, there are various other things, issues. If you read, there's a very famous book called Forensic Evidence by this person called B.R. Sharma which contains a big list of things that are considered to be qualities of an expert and all that. But then from the perspective of admissibility, from the perspective of what a quirk would want to see, I would say these are some of the most important things that we would look at the educational qualification, the experience and the expert. Expertise that a person has acquired by virtue of this education and experience in this field. These are the things that will enhance the value of an expert and if these are available, the court will consider that person to be an expert. And to that extent, all opinions are rendered by the expert in terms of this particular provision will be considered as expert opinion and will be admissible in that particular case. Although maybe it is not as considered to be as much of a value as other forms of evidence, like maybe eyewitness testimony is of a higher value. If there is a, for instance, there have been cases where there has been conflict between eyewitness testimony and expert evidence, where the doctor has gone on to testify that a particular, how a particular thing seems from a scientific perspective, as opposed to what an eyewitness has clearly explained, the court has always gone with the eyewitness, the court has not gone with the doctor. So eyewitness testimony, ocular testimony, we say, is always given more value than forensic evidence, as given by an expert. But nonetheless, it is certainly admissible, as far as it is given in the form of an opinion by someone who is considered to be an expert. Now, these are some aspects of admissibility that we come across in the evidence act. Of course, there are other provisions in the CRPC and many other laws like the, there is a separate law for poisons, there's a separate law for identification, which gives us details as regards with fingerprints and all of these laws have put together, created this whole field where a fingerprint can be ordered to be given, DNA can be ordered to be given by a magistrate and it will be made admissible in a particular case. But these are procedural aspects which make the evidence admissible. The second aspect of our discussion today, in fact, more than the admissibility part of it, because the admissibility comes into question more often than not on the basis of it being in violation of the right against self-incrimination. Which is why this particular topic has been devised in such a way where we address not only the admissibility of forensic evidence, but we also look at it from the perspective of its validity in relation to the fundamental right that has the capability of negating such forensic evidence. Article 20, clause three is the provision that provides us with the right against self-incrimination. Now, if you look at this particular provision, this particular provision has been inserted in the part, three of the constitution in the chapter that talks about the rights of freedom. And it falls under this particular chapter because of the fact that most of the times the concept of self-incrimination is addressed, at least in other countries, from the perspective of it being an extension of due process. In fact, if you look at the concept of self-incrimination in a country like America, maybe, then you will look at an extensive law that is designed to protect the interests of the accused from wrongful conviction, which under the spices of due process, cases like fraud, cases like Miranda, and in these cases, extensively it has been discussed, how self-incrimination is addressed. In fact, Miranda is the case, Miranda versus Arizona is the case in which the whole concept of self-incrimination emerges, as far as someone making a statement against himself is concerned. So these are the cases that have led to the strengthening of the concept of due process in countries like America. But in India, this whole concept of self-incrimination and this concept of evidence that is obtained on the basis of a confessional statement or the confessional statement itself is something that has had a long history. Because if you observe, historically, this whole law in India is something that has existed from the times of the British. Evidence Act itself is a very old law. However, although there was protection provided in the evidence act, protection provided in 263 of the Court of Criminal Procedure by ensuring that confessional statements are not admissible in a court of law by ensuring that the police cannot, it is irrelevant for police were to obtain a confessional statement. All these laws did exist, but then the entire model of police investigation was based on procuring a confessional statement. That was how police operated at that point. They would find an accused and the accused played a participatory role in the investigative process. The accused would be subject to an intimidating situation, even if you were to presume that the police is not engaging in torture or in any third degree or any such undesirable situation. The fact that the accused is in the presence of the police itself is considered to be an intermediary environment. And as such, the existence of this intermediary environment itself forces the person to be under a situation akin to a coercive situation. So the coercion is inherent in the situation, you can say. And the police use this coercion to put advantage. They often elicit a confessional statement from the accused and based on the confessional statement, they go ahead and obtain further evidence. And the Indian Evidence Act is very clear on this because the subsequent provisions, after we say that the confession is not valid, subsequent provision says that if any evidence is recovered on the basis of the confessional statement that is issued, then to that extent, the confessional statement gets validated subsequently. So this is one thing that has led to this model of investigation being developed in our country. So most probably you can say from the 1860s up to the 1960s, this was the available model of investigation that was used extensively. And it was not frowned upon. It was, in fact, the judiciary did not object to this particular model being used to gather evidence and to conduct the investigation in our country. However, most independence, when the constitution was established, we came across Article 20, which laid down the rights of a convict. These are the rights against conviction. They are called rights against conviction, the rights available in Article 20. There are three rights which are made available under Article, you have the right against double jeopardy or the right against exposed factor laws being applied, you know, nor the law that did not exist at the time of commission of an offense can be used to convict someone. Neither can the punishment be increased than what it was at the time of commission of the offense. And it is the third one that we are concerned with at this point of time, which is the right against self-increments. Now, the right against self-incrimination is based upon three very important cardinal principles of the criminal justice system in itself. Number one, every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Now, this is something we have heard everywhere, not only as lawyers or law students, that we have heard this particular concept in popular media as well, being reiterated over and over again that unless convicted, you know, unless proved, unless the guilt is proved, an accused person is always presumed to be innocent. The second principle, which is important, which forms the basis for Article 20, clause three, is that the burden to prove guilt rests upon the prosecution. Now, our age-old model of investigation, which is used by police throughout India from 1860s until now, is a confessional model. We catch the accused and we use the accused. The accused plays a participatory role. He sits with the police and he tells the police what he has done, where he has hidden the evidence and the police finds the evidence on the basis of this confessional statement. And then the part of the confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is validated. So this becomes, this goes against the principle that says that the person, the burden to prove guilt is always upon the prosecution. The third principle of criminal justice, which forms the basis for Article 20, clause three, is that an accused person cannot be compelled to make any confessional statement against his will. Now, this of course is the provision that finds purchase or basis in the concept of due process. Like I said earlier, a very famous case in America, Miranda versus Arizona has outlined this entire concept for us. And we have, I am sure most of us have come across this concept that any statement that is made is considered to be a violation, also of privacy, which we also reiterated subsequently, our Supreme Court has also spoken about it in another case, Selvi versus state of Karnataka, which we will discuss later. But these are the three cardinal principles of criminal justice, which are considered to be the fundamental principles behind the concept of self-incrimination, right? Then the provision itself was crafted, one small hiccup that we come across when we try to interpret this particular provision is probably the non-existence of any debate in the Constituent Assembly debates as regards to Article 20 class. Now, Article 20, we can find was thoroughly ignored by the members of the Constituent Assembly. There was so much debate that happened as regards to Article 20, as regards to Article 19, and as regards to Article 22, that Article 20 got lost in the process. So if you look at the Constituent Assembly debate, we don't find much was discussed by the members of the Constituent Assembly about Article 20. And what Prishis Little was discussed is probably not enough for us to make use of for the purpose of interpreting this particular provision. But then if we look at the concept of right against self-incrimination as outlined in the provision, the provision, the article has been drafted in a very peculiar manner. It says that the right against, in fact, it says that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. There are two things we must observe here. The first thing is that, you know, no, the first thing is that the law focuses on the concept of accused, you know, it says no person who is accused of any offense. And secondly, it says such a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. These are the two aspects of Article 20, Clause 3, which has been observed again and again by the Supreme Court. In fact, early on, there weren't many cases on which the Supreme Court has discussed Article 20, Clause 3. The only case that was available was the case of MP Sharma, which was decided in the 1950s. And in this case, the court focused on this concept, the concept that, you know, a person has to be accused of an offense for 20 Clause 3 to be available against, which was later on subsequently done away with by the Supreme Court, Nandini Satpatis. But then before that, you know, this particular idea existed, a person had to be accused, formally charged for him to avail the benefit of Article 20, Clause 3. Secondly, it is the compulsion and not voluntary disclosure. That is protected under Article 20, Clause 3. What we mean, again, like I said, the provision itself says he shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, which means we are focusing on compulsion. These are the two aspects of Article 20, Clause 3, which was considered in the very unique and seminal case of state of Bombay versus Katikalu, Ogad. Now, this was a judgment that was given by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, you know. And it was a case that had existed from a long time because Katikalu Ogad's case, the conviction came, I think, in the year 1955 itself. And subsequently it went to the High Court and by the time it came to the Supreme Court, it had been clubbed with two other cases. State of Bombay wanted to desperately prosecute Katikalu Ogad, so they came up to the Supreme Court. And in the Supreme Court, these questions were addressed. The question was as regards to the handwriting evidence, you know, and the recovery of certain subsequent trace evidences from the accused. There were two accused in this case, including Katikalu Ogad. Katikalu Ogad was accused number two and he was the one who had preferred and appealed to the High Court, which is why the later on the case came in the name of Katikalu Ogad. So Katikalu Ogad's case, the Supreme Court to a certain extent reversed the judgment that was given in MP Sharma's case. But then to a great extent it narrowed down the principle because in Katikalu Ogad, the Supreme Court went on to say number one, the protection that is given under article 20 clause three does not extend to a scenario where information given by a person after his arrest leads to the discovery of a fact. So the discovery of the fact occurring after his arrest does not immediately initiate the evidence, the confessional statement that is made by him and the protection of article 20 clause three cannot be cleared. The second thing that were discussed in the case of Katikalu Ogad was the concept of fingerprint and handwriting specimen which was obtained because what happened in Katikalu Ogad was now there was this prominent person in a particular village who had been shot and this shooting had taken place during a particular altercation that happened between the two accused and the victim. And there was a note that was left behind perpetually in the handwriting of the accused. The police arrested within a month, the case was resolved and it was pointed out to the police that Katikalu Ogad was involved in this particular case and he was one of the persons who had helped in killing of this person. So he was arrested by the police who were brought to the police station and in the presence of the police, he was asked to rewrite what was there in this particular note that was found in the crime scene. Now, being in this particular situation, you cannot refuse what the police asks you to do. So the Katikalu Ogad went on to rewrite the same message in another piece of paper and these two pieces of paper were sent for handwriting analysis and to prove that the handwriting was the second. The dispute here from the perspective of Katikalu Ogad with respect to the forensic evidence that has been collected in the case was that it was obtained from him under a duress, under a coercion. He was in a situation which was naturally intimidating to him being in the presence of the police and therefore, it is self incriminatory in nature which he would not have given otherwise. It was procured using wrong words but in fact, if a similar situation were to arise under a system like the American legal system, this particular piece of evidence would automatically be mediated. But here in this case, although the High Court had said that Ogad has to be acquitted because of the fact that this particular handwriting specimen was obtained using coercive methods. The Supreme Court refused to acknowledge this particular concept and the Supreme Court said that any fingerprint of any specimen of handwriting or signature, which it will not be covered under Article 20, clause three at all because it does not fall into the definition of to be a witness because if you look at the provision itself, the literal reading of Article 20, clause three goes on to state that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. And the Supreme Court literally interpreted this provision. They did not look at it from any other perspective. They went for a literal interpretation. They said that it says to be a witness means you must be giving oral evidence where you are incriminating yourself. Only then, 20 clause three will be involved. And as such, 20 clause three was not involved in this particular case, was not permitted to be involved in this particular case by Kathikalu Ogard and Kathikalu Ogard because it was an 11 judge bench decision because there were other decisions like Naptu's case and like MP Sharma's case which was an eight bench judgment which all these judgments were existing. So initially Kathikalu Ogard, which was referred to a five judge bench was referred up to an 11 judge bench because other decisions were there which were likely to be reversed. And therefore in the 11 judge bench by 80 to three majority, the Supreme Court has given this judgment as such. It has remained to be the precedent in this particular issue of admissibility of forensic evidence in light of article 20 clause three. Until now, although the, if you look at the interpretation of it, it is quite dissimilar when compared to other interpretations of article 21 or article 22 which we have seen in other cases. The rule of interpretation that has been implied is quite different, but then this is the existing precedent. Well, the slight change has come about, however, in the law subsequently through the judgment in Nandini Satpati was this PLDANI, Nandini Satpati's case as we all know she was a former chief minister and she was put in the, she was taken out of the police station during the interrogation process. She was made to answer a questionnaire which was very suggestive. And she later on went on to claim protection on the article 20 clause three which, for which the Kathikalu Ogad was the principal and NP Sharma's case was also considered to be one of the precedents. And in these cases it was said that you had to be an accused to avail the benefit under article 20 clause three. And when this particular statement was taken but from Nandini Satpati, she was not accused. She was not formally charged. She was merely being held at the police station for an interrogation. But the Supreme Court went on to expand the law to a certain extent. And thereby brought a very important, expansion of article 20 clause three and extended it to persons who were in the pre-charging stage of the investigation as well. And as such, this Nandini Satpati's case somewhat expanded the concept of article 20 clause three. But then this is the law as it exists at this point of time. Second aspect of article 20 clause three comes in the question when we look at the concept of DDT's. Like I said earlier, this concept of DDT's or deception detection tests has been a questionable piece of evidence from a very long time. There have been many cases in which this has been considered. And for a very long time, there were conflicting opinions between high courts, courts were not agreed on whether to admit this evidence or not. However, a definitive answer was reached at subsequently in the case of Selvi versus state of come. And one of the most important things that we have to consider here is that these DDT's like we discussed earlier constitute a violation of the right not only of self-incrimination but also the right of privacy. What has been observed by the Supreme Court in Selvi's case is that these two rights have to be read together with each other. And a very important contribution of the Supreme Court in this case is that the Supreme Court has said that article 23, 20 clause three has to be read in light of article 20. And as article 21 provides us the right of privacy, the conjunction of right of privacy and the right of self-incrimination will disallow this kind of evidence from being used in criminal trials. Because in these procedures that are undertaken for the purpose of finding out eliciting information from the accused himself are invasive procedures. They intrude upon the innermost sanctum of the prisoner whether the accused is under a powerful narcotic or whether the accused is being subjected to a scanning process which scans his brain to find out the, to map the various parts of the brains and to see whether he's telling the truth or not. Or whether it is merely scanning the bodily functions of the accused either way, we end up intruding into the most private sphere of the person's innermost sanctum, you know, and we delve into his, we deny him the accused, we deny the accused the right of, you know, not disclosing what is there in his mind. And which is considered to be a great violation of the right of privacy, which is the reason why in Selvi versus state of Karnataka, the Supreme Court has gone on to say that this must be disallowed. However, however, the court has acknowledged, you know, even in earlier cases before Selvi versus state of Karnataka, the court has acknowledged that these cases may be necessary, you know, these particular tests may be necessary. And the reason why they are necessary is because we need to look at these tests from the perspective of their value to an investigative process. Like I said earlier, the value of forensic evidence itself is enhanced during the course of the investigation, if not during the course of the trial. It may be of very less value when it comes to the trial, but it is certainly of a very high value to an investigative process. And one of the most important objectives is when a person is accused of having committed a crime, it becomes of a seminal importance for us to be able to conclude the process within a reasonable period of time, which is why courts time and again have reiterated that in the interests of concluding, you know, the investigation and the trial within a reasonable period of time, we can allow these deception detection tests if only if the accused voluntarily agrees to conduct in of the test. Now without, you know, the acceptance without the consent of the accused, we cannot, you know, perform these tests only when the consent is given in the presence of the magistrate, in the presence of the accused's advocate, in a neutral way, the test should not be conducted in a police station. The test must be conducted in a neutral way. Like for example, a hospital, such a test can be conducted and such a test will indeed become, you know, part of the investigation. It will have the same value as a voluntary confessional statement which is given under articles. That is the one, that is the value that it will achieve. So these are some of the aspect as regards with admissibility of forensic evidence that I wanted to put before you today. With this, I would like to conclude the topic. You know, I think I have comprehensively addressed all the issues involved. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vikas, for having arranged this lecture to interact with all the good people who have been listening to your lectures in the Beyond Law series. Thank you so much. Thank you. We had two questions by the same namesake, Vikas. He says, in case of a right of privacy claimed by the victim, proving innocence of accused, right of fair trial will prevail or not. In case of right of privacy claimed by the victim, if Vikas is there, can the question be elaborated? I have asked to unmute him, sir. Hello. Yeah, hello. Namaskar, sir. Namaskar, Namaskar. Sir, my question is in case of right of privacy, like there is some recording of victim and that accused person and that recording provides that accurate innocent. In that case, a victim has taken a plea like, this is my right of privacy. Then in that case, right of privacy will prevail or right of fair trial will prevail. You are talking about evidence which is in favor of the accused. Yes, sir, yes, sir. Sir, the principle of law involved here is the principle called exculpatory evidence. This is the kind of evidence that can exonerate the accused. So I don't think the accused should be using his right of privacy here because here he should be using the evidence to get himself exonerated. So this kind of evidence, even if this evidence is available at the prosecution, the prosecution has got a duty to provide this evidence to the accused so that the accused can use this to get himself acquitted from the case. This is, with source, do you recommend, sir? Sir? It's a very brief question by Kulkarni. With source, do you recommend? Source, is it for this entire concept? Yeah. There are several books that can be referred. Basically, with respect to 20 Clause 3, any book on constitution will be an ideal source. But then with respect to forensic evidence, there is a book by B.R. Sharma, which is the standard book, text book. And in fact, this is a book that has been referred several times by the Supreme Court in its judgments with respect to forensic evidence. And this book outlines forensic evidence in a lot of detail with all the Supreme Court cases. It can be a great book for you to refer if you want to learn more about forensic evidence. This is by Sagar Kotli. If police recovered mobile phone of an accused, can police ask password of accused or Facebook ID, et cetera? Is it self... It's a subsequent recovery. Under Kathikalu Ogaad, it is allowed. It becomes a subsequent recovery, which is what the court can ask the accused to disclose the password. Aman Mithil. Sir, I'm writing expert who find that the signatures are found, but the opposite party has not examined any expert. But court says that the experts give the report slash opinion in favor of their pay masters. What to do? It is not a question of pay master. See, in India, the concept works a little differently. In India, the expert is appointed by the court. And oftentimes these experts are people from the government departments only. So their expertise is well established. And the accused certainly has a right to cross-examine the expert and subsequent to cross-examination, like I said, the value of the evidence is somewhat lesser. When it comes to forensic evidence, it is upon the judge whether to take this evidence or not, the judge still has the discretion to consider or not consider the evidence given by the expert. Yeah. So thank you, Srinade for sharing your knowledge and the team of Beyond Law CLC, as well as the viewers are obliged that you've shared a fascinating subject in a lucid manner. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Stay safe, stay blessed. Bye.