1

FORENSIC SCIENCE

TOPIC: Polygraph Test: Legal Implication And Evidentiary Value

SUBMITTED BY:

Priya Singh

BA. LL. B (HONS.)

9TH SEMESTER

1020171860

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Ajay Ranga

(PROFESSOR)
 2

S.NO. TPOIC PAGE NO.

1 Introduction 1

2 Legal Implecation 2

3 The Law Of Evidence In 4

India

4 Conclusion 7
 1

METHODOLOGY
The current study focuses only on the primary sources for the collection of data. The
methodology used in the current study is the doctrinal.

INTRODUCTION

In the last century, the field of science and technology has experienced a massive
expansion. There have been new scientific advancements, and these advancements
have opened the doors of science to both the civil and criminal wing of law. Methods
of crime that are based on science are one thing on the other hand, scientific methods
for solving crimes have also been discovered. Scientific methods have advanced, lie
detector tests have become the most popular method for identifying the guilty party
(polygraph test). Along with an analysis for the presence of drugs of abuse. The
primary purpose of these tests is to determine whether or not the subject is telling the
truth or guiding.

In a lie-detector test, the person being tested is expected to tell the truth when an
examiner asks them a series of questions. Deception Detection tests, which are
sometimes known as lie detectors, have a significant impact on society.

Detecting liars is an important part of the criminal justice system and the study of
criminal psychology. As one of the most important and crucial tasks of investigators,
it is their job to determine if witnesses, defendants, and victims are telling the truth or
telling lies. Some of the most often used lie detection methods include polygraph
exams as well as approaches such as analysing speech and measuring peripheral
physiological responses to recording brain activity to help investigators in the
detection of dishonesty.

In criminal justice administration, deciding and finding perpetrator is a challenging

and critical issue as well. Because of them, some techniques were created for
detecting liars . First method was used in China 1000 BC by spitting out rice. A
person who has probability of lying was required to fill his/her mouth with a handful
of dry rice, the person expectorate the rice afterward. If the rice which came from the
 2

suspected person was dry, it meant that the person was guilty. This method was
explained by physiological principle, and it assumed that when human beings were in
fearful and anxiety situations, the salivating process was decreasing and it caused a
dry mouth.1

Polygraph machine records various metabolic activities of the human body in order to
show the psychological effects of the statement made by the person. It records blood
pressure, pulse, breathing rate and perspiration rate in order to show the psychological
changes in the person in respect to the answer given.2 Only physiological processes
and alterations in these functions are shown by the "lie detector." Either physical or
emotional stimuli can temporarily disrupt these bodily functioning. Not lies, but
emotions, are detected by the "lie detecting" system.

LEGAL IMPLECATION

Art. 20 of the Indian Constitution is the most important provision in the country's
criminal justice system (3). It's all about the right not to be indicted for your own
crimes. When it comes to the criminal law, "self-incrimination" is a key principle.
According to Article 20(3), no one accused of a crime can be forced to testify against
themselves. It is widely recognised to be a violation of Article 20(3) of the
Constitution to force an individual to take a test, as has been the case in India.
Lie-detector test and other in such test raises basic questions about judicial and human
rights issues. As an investigative tool, this technique raises legitimate concerns about
the infringement of an individual's rights, liberties, and freedom under the law. To
prove guilt in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu3, it must be demonstrated that
the defendant was forced to make a statement that could be used against him.
Compulsion is a form of coercion, which involves threats, beatings, or imprisonment
of a person's spouse, parent, or kid. Art. 20(3) does not apply where the accused gives
a confession voluntarily and without being coerced, threatened, or promised anything

1
11, Vicianova, M. Historical techniques of lie detection 522-53 (Europe’s Journal of Psychology,
2015).
2
Benjamin Burack, Critical Analysis of the Theory, Method, and Limitations of the Lie Detector, A,
46 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 414 (1955-1956).
3
AIR 1961 Cri LJ , Vol 2, 2007.
 3

in return. Confessions made through lie- detector, narco- analysis are violative of
A.20(3) of the Constitution.4

To ensure personal privacy and respect for civilised standards in criminal justice,
self-incrimination privileges are necessary. Even the accused can't be compelled to
answer any questions that could prove him guilty of the crime he has been accused of.
'Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare.' Confessions made under hypnosis should not be
accepted by the court, if they are based on physical or moral coercion. The Right to
Silence, which protects people from being forced to testify against their will despite
their wishes, is established in the Indian Constitution and the country's Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It is protected by law that a citizen cannot be compelled
to testify against himself. Unless the answer could lead to a criminal accusation,
penalty, or forfeiture, everyone is required under s.161 (2) to answer every inquiry
honestly and truthfully. Some argue that such scientific test is a form of mental torture
and so breaches Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of
its effect on one's right to privacy. Lie detector test’s evidence cannot be used in court
because of a law prohibiting interference into the privacy of an individual. The
National Human Rights Commission had published `Guidelines for the
Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000 and
reiterated in the case of Selvi & ors. V. Sate of Karnataka5:
(i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of
consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused
whether he wishes to avail such test.
(ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be
given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal
implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and
his lawyer.
(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to
have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.
(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear
terms that the statement that is made shall not be a `confessional'

4
Smt. Selvi & ors. V. Sate of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
5
(2010) 7 SCC 263.
 4

statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made
to the police.
(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention
including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
(vii) The actual recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an
independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence
of a lawyer.
(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the
information received must be taken on record.

As stated in the case of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani6, no one can forcefully extract
statements from the accused, who has the right to remain silent during interrogation
(investigation). These tests reinstate the practise of invading someone's mind without
consent, so invalidating the Right to Silence. Under the Constitution and CrPC, a right
to remain silent because of Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) of the CrPC. Tests like
lie- detector aren't thought to be all that accurate, though. Studied have shown that
bodily changes also occur due to nervousness, fear, or anxiety and not necessarily
because the person is lie.

In M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra7, the Apex Court observed that since the words used
in Article 20(3) were “to be a witness” and not “to appear as a witness” the protection
is extended to compelled evidence obtained outside the Courtroom. The same point
was reiterated in Kathi Kalu Oghad’s case. The term “Right to Privacy” is generic
term encompassing various rights recognized to be inherent concept or ordered liberty.
The right to be left alone on right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity is
Right to Privacy8. Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees citizens the right to
life and liberty, which includes the right to privacy. Unless he gives his permission,
no one can print anything relating to the aforesaid subject matter, whether it is
laudatory or critical, whether it is accurate or not. If this is done, it will be a violation
of the individual's right to privacy and could result in a lawsuit. Articles 14, 19, and

6
AIR 1978 SC 1025.
7
AIR 1954 SC 300.
8
P.Ramanahaa Aiyer, Law Lexicon 1689 (2nd edn.
 5

21 of the Indian Constitution are the best examples of a constitution that prohibits the
right to privacy.

The reliability of scientific tests is not free form doubt. It is necessary to recall
background of article 20(3) of the constitution. One of the fundamental canon of
British and American system of criminal jurisprudence has been the accused should
not be compelled to incriminate himself. One of extension of doctrine was with regard
to the production of documents by an accused in respect to subpoena or other form of
legal process. In R v. Purnell9, We know of the instance herein this court has granted
a rule to inspect books in a criminal prosecution nakedly considered.

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN INDIA

Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines evidence as under: “Evidence” means
and includes:
All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses,
in relation to matters of act under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
All statements including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;
Such statements are called documentary evidence.

Question arises whether any answer received as result of lie- detector Test would be
evidence or not. Perhaps such answers or statement would not part of evidence unless
it satisfies some other tests. It must be made clear that if any statement has been
permitted or required by the Court it does not become admissible in evidence. Court
may admit or may not admit it. Admissibility would depend upon number of factors.10

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the person who is expressing his or
her opinion must be in a fit state of mind. After an appeal to the Supreme Court, it
was claimed the accused could not have made such a confessional statement due of
the impact of medicine, but Supreme Court concluded there was no such influence

9
(1748) 1 Wm Bl 37.
10
R. Ramachandran, Scientific Techniques for Criminal Investigation 249 (Kamal Publishers, New
Delhi, 2012).
 6

and ruled it genuine. But the point is that cases may arise and may give birth to such
controversy.11

The combined effect of the provision of Section 24 to 2712 and Section 3213 of the
Evidence Act would bar statements from being admissible in evidence because there
is the slightest doubt coercion, or intimidation or any type of fear that the statement
was not free and frank or that immediately before such test the subject was harassed
by the police or was coerced, then such statements would be meaningless.14

The confession from the accused is derived from any physical or moral compulsion
(be it under hypnotic state of mind) it should stand to be rejected by the court. The
main issue thus is the question of its admissibility as a scientific technique in
investigations and its ultimate admissibility in court as forensic evidence.15
Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise are inadmissible under Section
24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the case of lie- detector the person undergoing
the test has no control over his bodily changes and the subject is forced to answer
questions against his will and according to Section 2416 of the said Indian Evidence
Act such confession made are inadmissible in court. The subject undergoing lie-
detector test is interrogated by the investigating agencies or police in presence of

11
Ibid.
12
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise
when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Confession to
police officer not be proved.
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Confession by accused while in custody of police not to
be proved against him.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 How much of information received from accused may be
proved.
13
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person
who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant
14
Criminal Law Journal 1772 (2007).
15
Dr. Nishant Singh, Forensic Science Principles and Applications 163 (Ancient Publishing House,
Delhi, 1st edn., 2011).
16
Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise,
when irrelevant in criminal proceedings: A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to Court to have been caused by any
inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding
from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused persons in
authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would
appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any
evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
 7

magistrate in the presence of the doctors and the entire confessional statement is hit
by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.17

Experts are permitted to present opinion testimony, but witnesses aren't, and the judge
isn't a specialist in all subjects, especially when the subject matter demands
specialised expertise. He is unable to make inferences based on the fact, which is
quite technical in nature. Therefore, an expert with superior knowledge or experience
on the issue is required to assist him. Today, the most pressing issue for jurists, judges,
scientists, attorneys, and academics across all legal systems is how to best utilise the
benefits of modern scientific discoveries and technological advancements in the
justice delivery system.18

The compulsory administration of lie- detector test violates the ‘right against
self-incrimination.’ This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to
ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as
evidence. By combining Article 20(3) with Section 161(2), the Court has found that
Article 20(3) covers the investigative stage of a criminal case, protecting those
involved in that stage as well as any witnesses who may be questioned as part of the
inquiry. Evidence cannot be accepted if the results were produced through the use of
compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual’s choice between speaking and
remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be
inculpatory or exculpatory.19

The scientific validity of the impugned has been questioned and it is argued that their
results are not entirely reliable. For instance, the narco-analysis technique involves the
intravenous administration of sodium pentothal, a drug which lowers inhibitions on
the part of the subject and induced revelations need not necessarily be true. In lie-
detector test the the emotional and physiological changes in once mind is recorded
and the truth or lie itself, so relying on such statements is highly dough full.20

17
Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession to police officer not to be proved-No
confession made to police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
18
Prof. (Dr.) Kamal Jeet Singh and Vikram Singh, Forensic Science: An Effective Tool in Criminal
Justice Administration 48 (C&MJ 302 2012).
19
B.R. Sharma, Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials 47 (Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt., Ltd., New Delhi, 5 th edn., 2014).
20
1567, ibid.
 8

Indian law does not consider suppressing truth only because the information is offered
by an accused person, as Nisha v. State of Orissa121 illustrates. It simply shields him
from having to testify against himself as a witness. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act does not compel testimony from the accused, hence it is incorrect to assume that
information given under this section is coerced testimony. In the case of Radha
Kishan v. State of Punjab22, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India curtailed the
reach of Section 27. In any scientific test in which, the accused is compelled to give
evidence and the findings that are made as a result of the investigation cannot be used
against him.

CONCLUSION

The use of a lie detector or other comparable test would be a violation of the
Constitution and would be harmful to the rule of law. They go against the
fundamentals of common law, upon which all modern legislation is based. Even if the
Constitution is changed to include these tests, further research and development are
required to ensure that they are as accurate as possible. Being a good steward of the
law in today's society necessitates accuracy and efficiency in execution. It can't rely
on an incorrect result to serve justice because this could have the opposite effect and
inflict injustice on the public. This means that the current condition of these tests is
ambiguous and needs further development. In the future, these tests may be the future
of legal investigation, but for now, they are ineffective and should be invalidated
because they amount to cruelty rather than aiding justice.

21
1955 Raj 147: Cr 1285.
22
171960 CrLJ 847.