Rajasthan HC: Lack of Hindi Fluency Cannot Bar a Narcoanalysis Test; Language Interpreter Must Be Arranged

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed a negative final report in a 2015 murder FIR, holding that an investigator must arrange a language interpreter rather than abandon a narcoanalysis test on the ground that a witness or suspect is not fluent in Hindi.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has quashed a Judicial Magistrate's order accepting a “Final Report Negative” in a murder case registered in 2015, ruling that the investigating agency's refusal to conduct a narcoanalysis test solely because the petitioner was not fluent in Hindi was legally indefensible. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, directed fresh investigation by an officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector and required that the investigation include a narcoanalysis test if the newly appointed officer considers it necessary. The order, passed on 21 May 2026 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2360/2023, draws directly on the Supreme Court's directions in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, which mandates that a language interpreter be part of the narcoanalysis team when needed.

The Murder FIR and the Negative Final Report

FIR No. 21/2015 was registered at Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa, following the murder of the brother of the complainant-petitioner, Feliram, son of Gangaram Meena, a resident of Ralawas. The accused persons were unknown at the time of registration.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report “Negative” before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot, District Dausa, stating that despite all efforts, the unknown accused persons remained untraceable. The report also recorded that although Feliram had consented to a narcoanalysis test, the test could not be conducted because he was not found to be fluent in Hindi.

Feliram filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate challenging the closure of the case. The Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the Final Report Negative by order dated 23 September 2022. Feliram then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash that order and obtain directions for a fresh, impartial investigation.

The Narcoanalysis Refusal: What the Court Found Shocking

The central grievance before the High Court was the Investigating Officer's decision to abandon the narcoanalysis test. Counsel for Feliram, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, pointed out that the Investigating Officer had himself applied for the test and Feliram had given his consent. The refusal by the concerned authority on the ground of Hindi fluency, counsel argued, could not be a valid reason for denial.

Justice Dhand described the reasoning as “quite shocking and surprising.” The Court held that if a witness, suspect, or victim is not acquainted with a particular language or is not fluent in Hindi, that fact alone cannot justify refusing to conduct a narcoanalysis test. The proper course, the Court said, was for the authorities to depute a person acquainted with the mother tongue of the individual concerned, in whose presence the test could be conducted.

The Selvi Framework and the Language Interpreter Requirement

Justice Dhand anchored the reasoning in the Supreme Court's judgment in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263. That judgment sets out the personnel who must be present during a narcoanalysis interview. The Court quoted paragraph 48 of Selvi, which lists the required team as a forensic psychologist, an anaesthesiologist, a psychiatrist, a general physician or other medical staff, and — critically — a language interpreter if needed. A videographer is also required to create audio-video recordings for subsequent scrutiny.

The High Court read the Selvi framework as expressly contemplating situations where the subject does not share a common language with the examining team. The inclusion of a language interpreter in the mandatory personnel list, the Court reasoned, makes clear that linguistic difference is an operational challenge to be managed, not a ground for abandoning the test altogether. The examination must also be conducted in the presence of an expert and the entire procedure must be recorded in audio-video format.

The Court found no justification in the second reason offered for the negative final report either: that more than six years had passed since the FIR and there were “bleak chances” of tracing the unknown accused. Justice Dhand held that an Investigating Officer cannot escape the duty to investigate merely because the accused are unknown. Cases of “blind murders” — where the accused are unidentified — place a positive obligation on the officer to make all necessary efforts to trace them. That obligation had not been discharged here.

State's Position and the Investigating Officer's Undertaking

Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, assisted by Mr. J.S. Rathore, Additional GA, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, and Mr. Anirudh Singh, opposed the petition on behalf of the State. The State submitted that if a direction for further investigation were issued, it would be carried out in a fair and impartial manner, including the narcoanalysis test.

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Lalsot, who appeared before the Court, stated that if the Court ordered further investigation, a fresh Investigating Officer would be appointed for that purpose.

Order

Justice Dhand quashed and set aside the order dated 23 September 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot. The matter was remitted to the Investigating Officer for further investigation, including the narcoanalysis test of Feliram or other suspects and witnesses if the Investigating Officer considers it necessary.

The Court directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Lalsot to appoint a fresh Investigating Officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector. The newly appointed officer was directed to make all possible efforts to complete the investigation expeditiously and to submit a conclusion report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court.

The petition was disposed of with these directions. The stay application and all other pending applications were also disposed of.