Sexual offences against children are one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed. The raisons d’être of this aspect is that children are the most vulnerable to abuse. Sexual offences against children refer to any act of sexual activity involving a child or a minor. In India, sexual offenses against children are covered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).

POCSO Act defines child as any person below the age of eighteen years.

Sexual offences committed against a child are of a grave nature and often call for the usage of complicated investigative techniques. These include scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraph tests.

  1. Narco Ananlysis test: Narco analysis is a controversial investigative technique used in criminal investigations to extract information from a suspect’s subconscious mind through the use of drugs. The procedure involves injecting a subject with a sedative drug, such as sodium pentothal or amobarbital, to induce a state of hypnotic trance or a semi-conscious state. The subject is then asked a series of questions to elicit information that they may be concealing or have forgotten due to psychological trauma.
  2. Brain Mapping: Brain mappingis a technique used to visualize and study the structure and function of the brain. This method involves the use of various imaging technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) scans, positron emission tomography (PET), and electroencephalography (EEG). The process of brain mapping involves creating detailed images of the brain’s anatomy and function to identify the areas of the brain responsible for specific functions, such as speech, memory, or movement.
  3. Polygraph test: Polygraph tests, also known as lie detector tests, are a type of diagnostic tool used to measure physiological responses in a person while they are being asked a series of questions. The test is based on the idea that when a person is lying, there are changes in their physiological responses, such as an increased heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration rate. During a polygraph test, the person being tested is typically connected to sensors that monitor these physiological responses. The examiner then asks a series of questions, both relevant and irrelevant, and analyses the person’s responses to determine if they are telling the truth. The results of the test are typically presented as a graph, with spikes indicating times when the person’s physiological responses were particularly high.

Some people argue that these scientific tests are a violation of a person’s rights and dignity, as they involve the use of drugs to coerce the subjects into revealing information. Others argue that they are a necessary tool for law enforcement to gather information that could help solve crimes. In either case, it is important to seek free consent of the subject before conducting any of such tests on them.


The accused was a neighbour of PW 4 (the victim). PW 4 is a four year old child who was friends with the grandson of the accused, Reyan. PW 4 used to visit the accused’s house frequently to play with Reyan and the same happened on the date of occurrence of the event. On that day between 10.30 AM to 12 Noon, when PW4 was at the house, the accused caught hold of her, removed her panties, insert his fingers into her vagina and went on to ascend on the body of PW 4. Thereafter, the accused started crying upon which, other family members of the accused residing in the house, arrived on the scene. Reshma, the mother of Reyan after witnessing the same ousted PW 4 from the house and banished her from ever coming back.

Posco Act

Throughout the day, PW 4 suffered acute pain in her urethra. The next day PW 4’s mother, took her to PW 2, Dr. Lakshmi who prompted PW 1 to report the matter to the police. Subsequently, the matter was informed to the Child Welfare Committee, First Information Report(hereinafter referred to as FIR) was lodged, statements of the witnesses were recorded and medical examination of the accused was conducted by the District Hospital.

The results of the medical examination corroborated the oral evidence given by the victim and other witnesses.

In contrast, the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) denied any and all allegations whatsoever.


The Special Judge, Thrissur held in favour of the victim and found the accused guilty under section 6 read with section 5 (m) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).


Soon after the decision of the Special Judge in Sessions Case no. 160/2015, the accused/petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerela, seeking the Hon’ble High Court’s permission tosubjecthimself to Narco Analysis test in order to substantiate his statement under section 313 of the CrPC.


Time and again different courts have opined different stances on the permissibility of Narco Analysis during criminal investigations. The use of scientific methods like Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraph testsas a tool for criminal investigation in India has been a topic of significant debate and controversy. There have been conflicting views on the subject. The judgement of Louis v. State of Kerala discusses these distinct views.


The counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that in cases akin to the present one, wherein the culpable mental state of the accused is presumed, the accused having a reverse burden of proof be allowed to subject himself to Narco Analysis test to rebut such statutory presumptions. In this regard the counsel for the accused/petitioner placed reliance on Selvi v. State of Karnataka and argued that in case the accused/petitioner is a hapless man coming before the court to seek permission to voluntarily undergo Narco Analysis test, then the same should be permitted to help him prove his innocence.


There are several limitations of Narco Analysis test including but not limited to:

  • No uniform criteria for evaluating efficacy: Narcoanalysis produces varying responses and there is no method of determining absolute truthfulness of the responses.
  • Inconsequential or fanciful responses: Since the subjects are in a hypnotic state under the influence of drugs, they may fabricate bizarre stories or apprise futile incidents completely unrelated to the matter. This may either lead to wastage or time and resources or unjust incrimination of the subject.
  • Obscurity with respect to the subject’s involvement in the case: Merely because a subject divulges information substantially accurate with the facts of the case, it cannot be said that they were directly involved in the crime. There is a possibility that the subject was only a bystander or a chance witness to the crime.
  • Consent cannot be equated with voluntariness: Subsequent to the initial consent given by the subject, they are unable to repeatedly exercise their free choice of answering or remaining silent to any question due to the influence of drugs. The subject under Narco Analysis test is not in a consicious or aware state. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines Fact as a mental condition about which a person is conscious. The categorical mention of the word conscious substantiates the premise that mere consent does not show voluntariness especially in a hypnotic state of mind.
  • Lack of credibility:There is a high chance that despite being under the influence of Narco Analysis test, the subject concocts exculpatory evidence. Since, there is no absolute success rate, the credibility of the responses given by the subject is dubious.

It cannot be said with absolute certainity that the results obtained through such methods are absolutely reliable. Therefore, standalone evidences obtained by such scientific tests should not be completely relied upon for proving the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held a similar view in the present case and dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that it was devoid of merits because the accused/petitioner’s prayer seeking himself to be subjected to Narco Analysis test so as to provide a corroborative piece of evidence to his statement under section 313 of the CrPC is not sustainable under law.


Sexual offences against children are a heinous crime and can have long-lasting and devastating effects on the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. Victims of sexual abuse often experience trauma, depression, anxiety, shame, and guilt despite no fault of their own. The culpable mental state of the accused, the appalling nature of such crimes and the complexities associated with the investigative process, in such circumstances, sometimes, render the usage of scientific methods like Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraph Tests necessary.

The gravity of the offence and the unlawfulness of the investigative technique opted for gathering evidence are directly proportional to each other. As the crime becomes more heinous, the degree of crookedness of the investigative techniques increases in order to extract as much evidence as possible.It must be kept in mind that the usage of these scientific methods for extracting information should be with the free consent of the subject otherwise it can lead to the violation of basic human rights of the subject such as the right to privacy, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to a fair trial.Furthermore, it is pertinent to be acquainted with the fact that the use of these scientific techniques cannot be a substitute for a voluntary confession. This is because, the evidence gathered by way of these scientific techniques cannot be completely believed. There are certain grey-areas in such scientific methods and techniques because of which the evidence in isolation is not one hundred percent reliable, rather it should be utilized as a corroborative piece of evidence.

Author: Sonakshi Pandey, A Student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply



  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010