This article has been written by Ms. Nancy Maggo, a 5TH year B.BA LLB Student from Law College Dehradun faculty of Uttaranchal University .
Introduction
Every aspect of our lives has been impacted by technology, which has altered the way we live, learn, and work. The driving force behind global progress is technology. Industries are working hard to keep up with new techniques, which are motivated by both technological advancements and their use in a wide range of fields. In the last few decades, there have been many technological advancements in the legal sector as well. Any criminal investigation needs to question suspects and accused parties in order to get the truth out of them. New investigative techniques have been created by technology, such as scientific and psychological tests that are intended to uncover the truth or collect data. When a key witness is unable to gather information, these tests—often referred to as DDTs or deception detection tests—are used on suspects to provide a lead in the investigation. Narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain mapping are the three main DDTs. Polygraphs, also referred to as lie-detectors, are used to investigate crimes, conduct interrogations, and judge a person’s sincerity. The polygraph, or polygraph instrument, is a piece of equipment that records physiological phenomena such as respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, and electrodermal response. The testing includes interrogation along with the physiological measurements obtained on the polygraph. Polygraphs are based on the notion that when a person lies about a specific subject, he enters a state of hyperarousal, and his body functions in a manner that is not normal or natural. The readings on the polygraph are determined by variables such as a rapid increase or decrease in heart rate, a slight increase in blood pressure, breathing or respiratory rate changes. The Control Question Test (CQT) is the most extensively used polygraph test. It has been controversial to use polygraphs in criminal investigations. The validity of the polygraph test in criminal investigations has frequently come under scrutiny in empirical research..
SIGNIFICANCE OF DEVELOPMENT
As long as people have been deceiving one another, people have tried to create methods for identifying lies and determining the truth. Interviews and interrogations were the most frequently used methods to learn what the deceiver would not readily admit. Criminal suspects are typically subjected to protracted periods of repeated interrogation during conventional interrogation procedures, and authorities frequently employ punitive measures in an effort to ascertain honesty and truth. Techniques that use physiological responses as indicators of deception first appeared in the 20th century. The most well-known of these is the polygraph. They were extensively used in the United States, Israel, Japan, and Canada for criminal case investigation and pre-clearance screening in national security agencies. Investigative authorities have used a variety of techniques to collect information from the accused and suspect .Since the time beginning the majority of them were based on the some form of torture.The development of sophisticated lie-detection tools due to the advancement of science and technology has removed the need for “third-degree torture” by the authorities. The criminal’s (or suspect’s) behavior is also interpreted using these psychoanalytical tests, which also serve to support the investigators’ observations. The rationale behind using these purportedly “scientific procedures” in fact-finding is that doing so will directly help investigating agencies gather evidence, increasing the likelihood that guilty defendants will be prosecuted and innocent defendants will be exonerated.
IMPACT
When subjects are informed that the polygraph shows they are lying, the confession rate is consistently high, making polygraphs particularly effective at getting people to divulge tightly-kept secrets. In this regard, polygraphs may have a profound psychological effect on subjects. In some instances, people would rather confess to the truth than use polygraphs in order to avoid the test because they are so desperate. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding polygraph testing among both scientists and the general public. The majority of psychologists and other scientists question the reliability of polygraph tests. Due to the inherent unreliability of polygraph evidence, courts frequently exclude it, including the United States Supreme Court. A polygraph test may not be particularly accurate, according to little evidence gathered from nearly a century of scientific research in psychology and physiology. The physiological responses that the polygraph measures aren’t always indicative of dishonesty. The observed changes in physiological reactions may be brought on by any number of emotions, including anxiety, fear, unease, confusion, and others. They are not always brought on by deception or lying. The subject’s mental state is also very important.
STATUTARY PROVISION
Results of polygraphs tests are not accepted as the only proof in Indian courts. This is fundamentally because the scientific community considers the test to be far from ideal. In India, however, polygraph tests are frequently used during criminal interrogations. There is no provision for accepting a polygraph examination’s findings in the Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act, or Constitution. A Supreme court decision on polygraphs and other new forensic psychology field was made by a panel under the leadership of the country’s then- chief Justice of India. The key aspects of this ruling in relation to polygraph interrogation are as follows:
The polygraph interrogation can be conducted only with the consent of the subject, before the magistrate.
• No one should be forced to undergo the test involuntarily.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows material and other evidence obtained from polygraph interrogation to be used as evidence.
• Direct evidence obtained from polygraph interrogation is inadmissible unless it is accompanied by additional evidence.
• Involuntary interrogation is a form of third-degree questioning, and the court will not allow it.
• The compelling public interest cannot justify the violation of self-incrimination rights.
CASE LAWS
State of Bombay v. Kathi kalu Oghad
In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the police conducting a polygraph without the consent of the accused person is a clear violation of article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Bombay High Court had to consider if forcing the accused to take the test would violate his right to silence and force him to testify against himself. Palshikar J. ruled in this case that the right against self-incrimination only extends to judicial proceedings, not police interrogation.
In this case, objections have been raised in respect of instances where individuals who are the accused, suspects, or witnesses in an investigation have been subjected to psychoanalytical tests without their consent. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the three common police interrogation techniques – narco-analysis, lie-detector testing, and brain-mapping – violated an accused person’s right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as well as her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Ramchandra Reddy and Ors. v.State
The use of brain fingerprinting, lie detector tests, and truth serum or narco-analysis were all found to be legal. The court upheld a special court order issued by the special court in Pune, which allowed the SIT to perform scientific tests on the suspects in the fake stamp paper scandal, including the principal suspect, Abdul Karim Telgi. According to the verdict, the evidence obtained under the effect of truth serum is also admissible. In the course of the judgment, a distinction was made between a “statement” (made in front of a police officer) and “testimony” (made under oath in court)
CONCLUSION
The criminal justice system strives to provide “justice for all” It would be necessary to protect the innocent, convict offenders, and guarantee a fair justice system in order to contribute to maintaining order across the nation. Therefore, it’s crucial to emphasize that polygraphs are not perfect and that there is always a chance of error when using the test. The results of the polygraphs test are not always wrong, despite the fact that there is always a chance of inaccurancy. Additionally, there are many benefits to polygraphs, such as the capacity to quickly learn vital information and pinpoint the guilty party.
REFERENCE
(1) https://blog.ipleaders.in/lie-detector-test/
(2) https://www.lawbulls.in/polygraph-testing-and-its-admissibility-in-court/
(3) http://www.academicus.edu.al/nr19/Academicus-MMXIX-19-146-155.pdf
(4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171915/
(5) https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
(6) https://essay4you.net/blog/the-polygraph-the-truth-about-lie-detectors/
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening