Crime rates in India have surged significantly, creating an ever-growing backlog of cases. Modern crimes differ markedly from the past, often leaving minimal physical evidence at crime scenes. Such challenges pose a hurdle for investigating agencies trying to link perpetrators to their crimes. While suspects can be identified, proving their involvement in the courts remains a complex task. Forensic psychology plays a crucial role in addressing these issues.
Forensic psychology integrates principles from psychology, forensic science, and law to enhance the justice delivery system. Its application within the Indian criminal justice system has expanded over recent decades. Forensic psychology encompasses a range of techniques, collectively referred to as Forensic Psychological Investigative Techniques (FPITs). These include Deception Detection Technologies (DDTs) like polygraphs, narco-analysis, Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOS), Layered Voice Analysis, and Suspect Detection Systems, as well as methods such as Psychological Autopsy and Offender Profiling.
These FPITs combine psychophysiological principles with technology, serving as valuable tools in investigations. They are employed to screen suspects, detect deception, and determine a suspect’s knowledge or involvement in a crime. Despite their utility, the legal status of these techniques in India remains contentious.
The right to remain silent, a cornerstone of legal protection in India, is enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) reinforces this right, stating that individuals are not obliged to answer questions that could incriminate them. This right was further upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Nandini Satpathy vs. Dani.
However, the use of forensic psychological techniques such as polygraphs and narco-analysis have been contested. In the 2010 case of Selvi & Ors vs. the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of involuntary administration of these tests. The Court ruled that such tests cannot be administered without the subject’s consent, as they would infringe on the right to remain silent. Nevertheless, if these tests are administered voluntarily, their results may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the use of evidence obtained voluntarily in certain contexts.
One notable case where forensic psychological techniques played a significant role was the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Narco-analysis was used on the suspects to extract information about the planning and execution of the attacks. The technique provided critical leads that aided in piecing together the sequence of events and provided crucial information regarding terrorist training camps in Pakistan.
Another important case is the 2009 Aarushi Talwar murder case. In this case, polygraph tests were administered to various suspects, including the parents of the victim. While the results were not directly admissible in court, they were instrumental in narrowing down the list of suspects and guiding the investigation.
The hit-and-run case of the Dhanbad judge involved the use of BEOS and narco-analysis to extract information from the suspects. The technique was employed to confirm the identities of those involved and their roles in the crime. Although controversial, these techniques provided crucial leads for the investigation.
In 2022, Ashraf Ali, an ISI agent, was caught by the Delhi Crime Branch. BEOS and narco-analysis were used to interrogate him. The use of these techniques was crucial in uncovering hidden details about the suspect’s involvement and motivations.
Forensic psychology is vital in addressing complex crimes in India and offers essential tools like polygraphs and narco-analysis. While these methods have proved valuable in investigations, their use remains legally contentious. Balancing their application with constitutional rights is crucial for advancing justice and ensuring ethical practices in the future.
(Keshav Kumar, IPS (Retd.) is a consultant to Assam Government. Hemant Reddy is forensic Psychologist. Views personal)
تعليقات