The court of Metropolitan Magistrate Sunil Kumar Sharma in Delhi today (20 May 2015) allowed Delhi Police to conduct lie-detector test on three witnesses in the Sunanda Pushkar murder case. This test was permitted by the court after these three persons namely, Shashi Tharoor’s domestic help Narain Singh, driver Bajrangi and friend Sanjay Dewan, informed the court that they were willing to undergo the polygraph test. The court allowed this test on these persons subject to NHRC and the Supreme Court guidelines.
During the hearing before the court, in a plea filed by the SHO of Sarojini Nagar Police Station, it was stated that during investigation, several persons including Narain, Bajrangi and Dewan were examined as they were closely associated with Shashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar, and were also present at Hotel Leela Palace just before her death. The police also stated that these three persons were examined during the investigation but they were hiding some crucial facts regarding the injuries on Sunanda Pushkar’s body.
The counsel appearing for the said three persons told the court that his clients were ready to undergo the polygraph test because they did not want to give the impression that they were running away from the probe.
So, now the polygraph or the lie-detector test will be conducted on these 3 persons by Delhi Police.
It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 : AIR 2010 SC 1974, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question [namely narco-analysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test], whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise and that doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, the Supreme Court had allowed the voluntary administration of these techniques (including polygraph examination) in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place.
The Supreme Court further held that National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had published ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused’ in 2000 and that these guidelines should be strictly adhered to while conducting such test. The text of these NHRC guidelines is reproduced below:
(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’ 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.
The Supreme Court had also held in the above case that even when a person has given consent to undergo any of these tests (including the polygraph test), the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the person undergoing test does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case can be downloaded from here.
