You are on page 1of 6
CHAPTER XV LIE DETECTOR TESTS SYNOPSIS itGenemlis cs cela. 5 REV rit sin = 189 2. Ate “ie detector tests" sel-incriminating?—Testimonial compulsion - 181 3. Australian perspective—Sole purpose of lie detector testis a bolster the credit of the Era ESune nbumbes cena PHL TCH) lt). cfs ba tat 4. Can the test be manipulated? —Diry ite secret about the polygraph test. . . 182 5. Position in India—Lie detector test does not result in making any incriminating er + 182 Statement by accused... .. 6... see eee eee 6. Three compartments—Position in USA—Abuse of discretion. 7. Validity and accuracy of le detector tess inthe questioning of crime suspects and others and indeed about the validity of the technique as a whole. 8. Whatis the underiying theory? ee eee ee io 108 8. Where partes oa dispute consented to testing by an independent suitably qualified Psychiatrist or psychologist, shoulda Tribunal have regard tothe result ofthese tests MupeOamial Meare Een ek on ws... . « + 185 10. Whether exceptional circumstances may exist where evidence of ie detector tests may be admitted? + 185 1. General.—With the advent of science and technology, every aspect of human life has been revolutionized and the courtroom exercise is no exception to this tule. Courts too have witnessed the widespread introduction of numerous not an era where these ultramodern techniques can shamelessly be put in the garb. Its an era where the utility and reliability of techniques, like the lie detector ‘est needs to be correctly assessed, and admitted and tot per se be excluded. Thus, it definitely becomes clear that the i the exception of Australia, sooner or lat ae and not per se exclu 2 across the globe, with wt ote Tesorting to the liberal approach dmissibility of the detector test.1 ie ‘See 2006 Cri LJ Journal Section, at Page 183, (180) UE DETECTOR Tests 181 ‘ ating: ; : aa ’—Testimonial compulsion,— he ins for long now, but alas came the last Court in the case of Ramchandra Ram Reddy v, Stee of the issue was discu ed threadbare wherein the Polygraph sagctor test was held not to bean retire that What was contemplated for 2(3) of the Constitution wees Protectic he protection to an itness against himsel Maharashtra,’ where testmore common) incriminating. The Court reasoned b; protection under Article monial compulsion or { compelled to be a w: under Article 20(3) of “statement” itself being made by the self-incrimination does Not arise. The term ‘statement’ as understood by the leclaration, matters of fact or something test all that is being done is certaic inations undertaken by tinciple and held that results from polygraph examina S undertaken by Haat were inadmissible evidence in the course of a cratinal i pe Honour held that as a question of law this evidence was inadmissible for eae deca a eae of the lie detector test is to bolster the credit a | " the accused as a witness and is hence against the renee inci i in a Court of law, rinciples applicable in a i 2 Ti eae is not qualified as an expert; he nN marelieaa : tor and assessor of a polygraph, Furthermore the scientific Eee pons aeeseri ie eT eae ee i this Court or in any Court in Australia. (1) Bom CR (Cri) 657. 2 one Cri LJ, Journal Section, at page i a 3 Pansat George Murray, 1982 7A Crimes R48. 182 [MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY Ich xy, 3. The evidence from lie detector is simple hearsay which is missible and of no probative value. The Australian authorities state that “Whatever may be the situation in some States of the United States of America, this “evangelical sideline”, ag j was.described, in passing, by Mr. Glare, which no doubt holds a genuine fasc; nation for some people, has no place in a criminal trial in New South Wale. In fact, concern in New South Wales about the use or misuse of lie detector by employers, insurance investigators and others has led to the enactment of th. Lie Detectors Act, 1983. inad. 4. Can the test be manipulated?—Dirty little secret about the polygraph test.—The dirty litle secret about the polygraph testis that the “test” depereit upon trickery and not science. The polygraph pens don’t do a special dance when people lie. It is not supposed to be known that while the polygraph operator admonishes the examinee to answer all questions truthfully, warnin, that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that the denials will be less than truthful. The polygraphist falsely assumes that such questions provide a baseline of truth, because the true answer is obvious. They merely serve as buffers between pairs of ‘relevant’ and ‘controlled’ questions Apart from this, the test also includes irrelevant questions like, are there lights in the room? The simplistic methodology used in polygraph test has no grounding in the scientific method; it is no more scientific than astrology. Perversely, the test is inherently biased against the truthful, and the liars can easily beat the test by covertly augmenting their psysiological emotions! 5. Position in India—Lie detector test does not result in making any incriminating statement by accused —In India the rule seems to bn changing, trough of late there is enoromous reliance being placed by the Courts on the ultramodern techniques. The Court in the case of Noormolimat Jamalbhai Lativala v State of Gujarat, held that—“for detection of white collar crimes, it is expected Of the State to undertake the investigation through ultra modern machineries . ely, the issue challengi the validity of the lie detector test under the Provisi ei Fa 1. See 2006 Cri 4, Journal Section, at page 180, 2. AIR 2002 SC 3206 ; 2002 Cri 1] 4676. 3. See 2006 Cri LJ Journal Section, at Page 180,

You might also like