LIE DETECTION

The lie-detector test is a type of activity in which the accused, suspect, witness, or any other individual is expected to speak the truth when questioned by an examiner. They are also known as Deception Detection Tests and have broad moral, scientific, and legal implications in society. With the advent of science and technology, advanced methods of lie detection have been created, which eliminate the use of third-degree torture by police officers. The main premise in using scientific aids to inquiry is the rule of fair play, objectivity, and openness of mind in the collecting, appraisal, analysis, and application of these scientific evidences by investigators and forensic professionals. Forensic science is critical in the detection of crime. “According to Encarta World Dictionary, meaning of the word forensic, is crime solving relating to the application of science to decide questions arising from crime or litigation.”

NARCO ANALYSIS TEST

“The term Narco analysis is derived from the Greek word NARKE which means Anesthesia or Torpor and was used to describe a diagnostic psychotherapeutic technique that uses psychotropic drugs to introduce a stupor suspension, a state in which mental element with a strong associated affects come to the surface where they can be exploited by the therapist (or investigating agency).”[1] Narco analysis testing is often referred to as Lie Detector Testing or Truth System Testing.

This test is connected with the intravenous delivery of a medication that causes the subject to enter an anaesthetic state. The discoveries can assist investigators in locating key pieces of evidence or in correlating pre-existing testimony and prosecution ideas. However, there are significant limitations to this test, such as the fact that some participants can maintain their ability to lie when under anaesthesia. Even the medicine used did not ensure that the individual would solely speak the truth. The responses supplied during a hypnotic stage are not offered deliberately or in a lucid state of mind. As a result, they cannot be used as evidence in court. When performed without consent, this test poses numerous serious concerns, including physical intrusion into the body by inserting needles and different excruciating stimuli such as pinching, shaking, slapping, and similar actions to rouse a person from a deep slumber in order to answer the questions. Section 25[2] of the Indian Evidence Act states that a confession given to a police officer is inadmissible and cannot be proven. The primary goal of this section and Section 26 [3]of the act is to prohibit police personnel from torturing suspects in order to get confessions from them. Despite the fact that both divisions seek the same goal, they function in separate domains. It is commonly known that police officers employ shortcut tactics to gain confessions, including putting the detained individual in third degree so that the detained person confesses.

POLYGRAPH TEST

The term Polygraph refers to a method that records certain physiological activity. “A Polygraph is a device for measuring some involuntary biological reactions, such as blood pressure and sweat, from which an opinion is made as to whether or not the individual being tested is telling the truth according to Webster’s legal dictionary.” The theory behind this test is that when a subject (person) lies to the examiner, his body will produce different physiological responses than it normally would, which will be detected by the examiner by noting measures such as heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, skin conductance, and electromyography as a few instruments are attached to the subject for this purpose. “There are downsides, such as the fact that measurable changes in physiological responses are not always elicited by lying and deceit, but may also be elicited by worry, fear, agitation, perplexity, or any other emotion.” [4]However, the biggest failure of this test occurs when a person purposefully seeks to induce varied physiological reactions to the question in order to mislead the examiner into marking the answer as true rather than false.

Brain Mapping Technique

It’s also known as the “P 300 waves test.” It is a means of determining if a person is friendly with given knowledge by measuring brain activity in response to certain stimuli. The purpose of this test is to examine and measure ‘event-related potentials’ (ERP), which are electrical waveforms released by the brain after it has absorbed an external event. To prevent inconsistencies caused by weather conditions, the test must be done in an air-conditioned and insulated room. The main disadvantage of this test is that it is entirely dependent on the subject’s familiarity with the crime scene or any related information, which can be present in a person’s mind due to exposure to pictures and videos through media or by looking at or reading such things in newspapers, magazines, etc., or he may have been a mere bystander when the crime occurred.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

 Confessions made by a semiconscious individual are not admissible in court, hence such examinations are typically not allowed. However, the court may approve restricted admission after reviewing the circumstances surrounding the test’s acquisition. In one of the cases, the petitioners claimed that courts could not order the prosecution to conduct Narco analysis, brain mapping, and lie detector tests without the accused’s will since it would be a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. “Article 20 of the Indian Constitution contains the major clause concerning criminal investigation and trial. It is concerned with the right to remain silent in the face of self-incrimination.”[5] The privilege against self-incrimination is a basic principle of common law criminal law. “This privilege is enshrined in Article 20(3), which states that no person accused of any wrongdoing shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself. Subjecting the accused to the test, as has been done by Indian investigating authorities, is widely seen as a flagrant breach of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.” [6]The legal implications of using this methodology as an investigative assistance present serious concerns, such as infringement on an individual’s rights, freedoms, and freedom.

JUDGEMENTS

In May 2010, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by former CJI KG Balakrishnan, heard the case of “Smt. Selvi & Ors vs. State Of Karnataka,” [7]in which Lie Detection Tests was challenged on the basis of violations of fundamental rights such as “Right against self-incrimination enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself, and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) has been judicially expanded to include a right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The Supreme Court remarked that Article 20(3) preserves an individual’s option between speaking and keeping silent, regardless of whether the ensuing evidence is incriminatory or exculpatory. In this instance, the Supreme Court also established certain criteria for the Polygraph test. The Court also ruled that the accused should not be subjected to a polygraph test without his or her agreement. If such a test is done without the accused’s agreement, it would be a clear violation of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Concerns about human rights breaches in DDTs have been raised for a long time, and the National Human Rights Commission produced Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Tests in 2000. However, just a handful of the investigative agencies were seen to adhere to these principles. 

In September 2017, the Supreme Court also declared that no accused might request a narcotics test to prove their innocence. Confessions made by a semi-conscious person are not acceptable in court, hence these tests have no legal validity. However, after evaluating the circumstances surrounding the test, the court may award restricted admission.

The Court stated in “Dinesh Dalmia v State[8]” that when the accused does not purportedly come forth with the truth, the investigative agency resorts to scientific testing. A training like this does not constitute testimonial coercion. It is clear from the preceding explanation that administering a Narco Analysis test does not violate Article 20 (3) per se. Only after the test, if the accused divulges incriminating information, would it be subject to Article 20. (3). Other information revealed throughout the exam may be useful in the inquiry. As a result, there is no justification to restrict such a test on the basis of unconstitutionality.

“There are several cases underway in the state involving significant crimes such as the Saurabuddin encounter case and the murder of his wife Kausharbibi, among others. Where the conduct/performance of the Brain Mapping Test is in question, and in some cases the Investigating Agency has found themselves in the dark and clueless, there is a need to conduct the Brain Mapping Tests, and the proceedings are pending at various stages before the various Courts, i.e. either at the stage of learned Magistrate and/or Revisional Court.”[9]

In the case of “Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation[10]” through its Director and Others, also known as the Arushi Murder case. In this case, Arushi, a 14-year-old girl, was discovered dead in her house on May 16, 2008.  In this instance, the accused was subjected to a Narco-Analysis test, a Polygraph test, and a Brain Mapping test. It was argued in court that the results of these tests could not be used as evidence in a court of law.

In the case of “Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police,” the Court stated, while authorising a Narco Analysis test, that the procedures employed by criminals for crime commission are quite complex and current in today’s world. The traditional way of inquiry may produce no results at all. As a result, scientific tests like as polygraph, brain mapping, narco analysis, and others are increasingly employed in case investigations. When such tests are carried out under the rigorous supervision of an expert, there is no breach of the basic rights given to an Indian citizen.

CONCLUSION

Lie Detection Tests have been subjected to a variety of critiques, the extent of which is unknown. The method in which modern-day criminals exploit science and technology to commit crimes with relative impunity has caused a reconsideration on the part of the criminal justice establishment to seek the assistance of the scientific community to assist the police, prosecutors, and courts. Criminal process, evidentiary standards, and institutional infrastructure built more than a century ago are now determined to be insufficient to fulfil the needs of the scientific era. The lack of a national policy in criminal justice administration in this respect is regarded as a significant disadvantage. If it is the judge’s job to guarantee that no innocent person is punished, he must equally guarantee that no criminal man escapes. Because both are public obligations, there is no infringement of an individual’s rights.

[1] Narco Analysis Test and Law in India,( June 5,2021 , 8:45 PM) https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/nacro-analysis-test

[2] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 25

[3] Indian Evidence Act,1872 § 26.

[4] Suresh Bada Math, Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping: A boon or a bane, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH (IJMR).

[5] INDIAN CONST. art 20

[6] INDIAN CONST. art 20 § cl 3.

[7] Smt. Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2010) 7 SCC 263

[8] Dinesh Dalmia v. State, Crl. R.C 259 OF 2006

[9] Santakben Sharmanbhai Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 2009 CriLJ 68.

[10] Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 CriLJ 3992.