Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts have held that these tests can aid investigations but should not replace traditional evidence, and their use should be cautious and within legal boundaries ["Byrraju Ramalinga Raju VS State, CBI represented by Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh"], ["ABHAY SINGH VS STATE OF U P - Allahabad"].
Polygraph or Lie Detector Test - Main points and insights:
Analysis and Conclusion:The use of brain mapping (P-300) and polygraph tests in NI Act cases is primarily as investigative tools rather than definitive evidence. Courts recognize their potential to guide investigations but emphasize their scientific limitations and the importance of obtaining voluntary consent. While these tests can provide insights into concealed knowledge or truthfulness, their evidentiary admissibility remains contentious, and they cannot replace traditional evidence. The fundamental rights of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution prohibit forced testing, and the courts advocate a cautious approach, ensuring that such scientific techniques are used ethically and within legal bounds ["Mekhala Dwarakanath B. , M. D. VS State By Central Bureau Of Investigation - Karnataka"], ["Praveen Choudhary VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Saroj Kumar VS State Of U. P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, UP Civil Sectt. Up Lko. - Allahabad"].
In the realm of financial disputes, particularly cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), parties often seek scientific methods like polygraph (lie detector) or brain mapping tests to prove guilt or innocence. But can these tests be legally compelled or relied upon as evidence? The question arises frequently: Ploygraph or brain mapping test in NI Act Cases – are they admissible?
This blog post delves into the legal landscape, drawing from Supreme Court precedents and key judgments. While these tests may seem like a quick path to truth, courts have imposed strict restrictions to protect constitutional rights. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The foundation of restrictions on polygraph and brain mapping tests lies in the Indian Constitution. Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, stating no accused person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. Article 21 safeguards personal liberty, preventing intrusive state actions without due process. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950
The landmark Supreme Court case Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (Selvi supra) ruled that involuntary administration of these tests violates these rights. The Court emphasized: involuntary administration of polygraph and brain mapping tests violates constitutional rights against self-incrimination (Art. 20(3)) and personal liberty (Art. 21) Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950. Even voluntary tests have limits – results cannot be directly admitted as substantive evidence because they are 'testimonial' in nature, beyond the individual's conscious control. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950
In NI Act cases, courts have consistently rejected such tests when forced. For example, in one ruling, the court refused to compel witnesses to undergo polygraph tests, citing legal and constitutional violations. Aboobakkar @ Abu VS State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 754
Voluntary consent is permissible, but only under rigorous safeguards outlined by the Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):- Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950- The individual must have access to legal counsel throughout. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950- Tests conducted by independent agencies, in the presence of lawyers. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950- Full explanation of implications, ensuring statements are non-confessional. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950
Even then, test results alone cannot form the basis for conviction. They are auxiliary at best. Information discovered via voluntary tests may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if it leads to recovery of material evidence. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950
Other judicial observations reinforce this. In a case, the court noted: if a brain-mapping test is allowed, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution but only in context of voluntary request by the accused, highlighting no delay to trial. PURSHOTTAN SWAROOPCHAND SONI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2007 Supreme(Guj) 221
NI Act cases, often involving Section 138 for dishonored cheques, demand robust documentary evidence like bank records, not speculative scientific tests. Courts have explicitly stated these tests are not recognized for establishing guilt or innocence, especially if involuntary. Sabra Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 755Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8
In Sabra Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 755, the court held: results of polygraph tests are not substantive evidence for conviction. Similarly, Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8 clarified: scientific tests like polygraph or brain mapping cannot be used to establish guilt in NI cases, especially when involuntary.
A petitioner argued scientific tests could wipe out fake cases, but the court ruled a complainant cannot be forced into brain mapping or polygraph before investigation starts. ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4862
Judgments beyond NI Act echo these principles. In a murder investigation, the court allowed brain mapping on the accused's voluntary request from jail, noting the prosecution had earlier sought a polygraph but didn't proceed. It observed: On the contrary, if the brain-mapping test goes against the accused, it would support the prosecution case. Yet, evidentiary value is for the trial court to decide. PURSHOTTAN SWAROOPCHAND SONI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2007 Supreme(Guj) 221
Another case stressed the investigating agency's duty: Conducting of Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test on the accused are in process of collection of such evidence by the Investigating Agency. But this is not a right; police must follow CrPC provisions like Section 161. Lilaben Kasabhai Makavana VS State Of Gujarat - 2020 Supreme(Guj) 843
In a fair investigation plea, the court directed scientific techniques via CID (Crime), but without forcing tests: investigation shall be handed over to C.I.D. (Crime)... conduct further investigation in scientific manner. Lilaben Kasabhai Makavana VS State Of Gujarat - 2020 Supreme(Guj) 843
However, reports lacking proof of voluntary consent or advocate presence are inadmissible. One judgment criticized a brain mapping report: neither it is stated that the petitioners volunteered... nor that their advocate was present. Vijay @ Vijaykumar S/o. Rajashekharappa Kulkarni VS State of Karnataka By Its Vidyanagar P. S. , Rept. By SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 24
Accused cannot demand tests on witnesses as a right. Courts have ruled: An accused cannot as a matter of right demand conducting of narco test or brain mapping test on the informant and other witnesses. Ram Ayodhi Rai @ Ayodhi Rai VS State Of Bihar - 2008 Supreme(Pat) 1273
Rare exceptions exist:- Voluntary tests with safeguards may aid investigation, but results need corroboration.- Derived evidence (e.g., recoveries) under Evidence Act Section 27.- No conclusive proof; trial courts assess evidentiary value. PURSHOTTAN SWAROOPCHAND SONI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2007 Supreme(Guj) 221
In NI Act contexts, focus remains on traditional evidence. Coercive tests risk case dismissal.
Courts must scrutinize consent and avoid delays.
Polygraph and brain mapping tests in NI Act cases are highly restricted. They may only be voluntary, with strict safeguards, and cannot standalone as conviction evidence. Supreme Court in Selvi (supra) prioritizes rights over scientific allure: involuntary tests are unconstitutional, results testimonial and inadmissible directly. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950
Key Takeaways:- Involuntary tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950- Voluntary only with magistrate-recorded consent, lawyer presence. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950- Not substantive evidence in NI Act; auxiliary at best. Sabra Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 755- Focus on corroborated proof for cheque bounce defenses.
Stay informed, protect your rights, and consult legal experts for tailored guidance.
References:1. Amlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 950: Selvi vs. State of Karnataka.2. Aboobakkar @ Abu VS State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 754: Rejection of forced polygraph on witnesses.3. Sabra Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 755: Polygraph results not substantive.4. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8: Tests inadmissible in NI cases.5. Additional: PURSHOTTAN SWAROOPCHAND SONI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2007 Supreme(Guj) 221, ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4862, Lilaben Kasabhai Makavana VS State Of Gujarat - 2020 Supreme(Guj) 843, Vijay @ Vijaykumar S/o. Rajashekharappa Kulkarni VS State of Karnataka By Its Vidyanagar P. S. , Rept. By SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 24, Ram Ayodhi Rai @ Ayodhi Rai VS State Of Bihar - 2008 Supreme(Pat) 1273.
#NIACT #PolygraphTest #BrainMapping
(Emphasis added) The result of brain mapping test is as stated (supra). Insofar as brain mapping is concerned, it is conducted against several accused. ... Therefore, the polygraph test conducted upon the petitioner was completely against the prosecution. What the CBI would do next is conduct of a brain mapping test. The petitioner was subjected to brain mapping test on 28th Marc....
the narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests conducted upon the petitioner so that the truth of the matter could be brought out. ... State reported in (2013) 2 CriLR 1045 wherein, this Court permitted the accused for being subjected to narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph test. 7. ... In order to prove his innocence, he filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate NO. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan with the prayer that he is ready and willing to undertake Nar....
We specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether such tests as are referred in the relief clause i.e. narco or lie detector test or brain mapping test are admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act or not, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that ... We are also in agreement with the opinion expressed by the Kerala High Court considering the aforesaid discussions as the result of the brain mapping test#HL....
These were Brain Mapping, Narco Analysis and Polygraph tests. The tests were conducted by PW 21, Dr. S. Malini who was a forensic expert in Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping. ... Similarly, the Brain Mapping test was indicative of the possession of knowledge about the accused persons and their active participation in the case. However, the test reports did not prove the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime beyon....
C. is whether the accused should be compelled to undergo Narco Analysis and Brain mapping test against his wishes ? ... , which was allowed by order dated 24-12-2008 and permission for conducting Narco analysis and Brain Mapping test was granted. ... If that invasion of the person of the accused is permissible, the, principle should be applicable to Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping test also. ... act will amount vi....
In the recent past in number of cases brain-mapping test has been carried out. As to whether the results of brain-mapping test can be treated as evidence or what evidentiary value is to be given to such test is a matter to be decided by the trial court. ... The request for brain- mapping test has been objected by tooth and nail. Admittedly the prosecution has failed to show any prejudice being cau....
The prayer which has been made by the Investigating Officer is with respect to conducting Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test upon the accused Bipin Sharma and upon one witness Javed Khan. ... During the course of supplementary investigation, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 for conducting the Narco test and Brain mapping test of accused Bipin Sharma. ... A further prayer has been made in this writ appl....
, lie detector test or a brain mapping test on the petitioner. ... ... The second test is Brain Mapping or P-300 test. In this test of Brain mapping the suspect is first interviewed and interrogated to find out whether he is concealing any information. ... Apparently, the contention regarding violation of the constitutional guarantee in cases of a person being subjected to #HL_S....
It is stated by the Petitioner that with the growth of technology, scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy and Brain Mapping, etc., can be used to wipe out fake cases. ... In view of the above, a complainant definitely cannot be forced to go through deception detection tests such as brain mapping test, polygraph test, narco analysis, lie detector tests, etc. to ascertain the veracity of the complaint before the investigation starts against the accused. ... Th....
It is stated by the Petitioner that with the growth of technology, scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy and Brain Mapping, etc., can be used to wipe out fake cases. ... In view of the above, a complainant definitely cannot be forced to go through deception detection tests such as brain mapping test, polygraph test, narco analysis, lie detector tests, etc. to ascertain the veracity of the complaint before the investigation starts against the accused. ... Th....
It is the duty of every person to furnish information regarding offence and it is the duty of every citizen / person to assist the State in detection of crime and bringing the criminals to justice. Conducting of Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test on the accused are in process of collection of such evidence by the Investigating Agency. It is a right of the Police Officer under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate the crime and collection of the evidence by the Police Officer is permissible under the law. Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure C....
This report contains the details of subjecting the petitioners to Brain Mapping Test and methodology followed in subjecting them to the said test. In this report neither it is stated that the petitioners volunteered to subject themselves for Brain Mapping Test nor it is stated that their advocate was present at the time of subjecting them to the test. The letter issued by the Court also does not show as to whether the guidelines stated above have been followed. The copy of the report submitted by the Assistant Director, Forensic Physiology Division, Forensic Science Laborat....
State reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 2401, even the investigating agency would necessarily have to take permission of the court before embarking upon the such test. It is up to the investigating agency to decide whether any appropriate narco or brain mapping test would be deemed expedient in a particular case or not. Further more in view of decision rendered in case of Dinesh Dalmia V/s. An accused cannot as a matter of right demand conducting of narco test or brain mapping test on the informant and other witnesses.
Only after it is found that there is no alternative, for further investigation in a right direction, application was given for Narco Analysis Test and Brain mapping Test of the petitioner. WHAT IS BRAIN MAPPING TEST:-The Brain Mapping Test is also known as P-300 test. In this test of Brain mapping the suspect is first interviewed and interrogated to find out whether he is concealing any information. Conducting of Narco Analysis test and Brain Mapping Test on the accused are in process of collection of such evidence by the Investigating Agency. It is the du....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
