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,