Charge & Discharge
Sexual assault case—Consideration of polygraph test report at the stage of framing of charge.
Held : The Hon’ble Supreme Court has since long held that the credibility of the witness testimony has to be determined beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case at the relevant stage of trial i.e. after testimony is recorded and is tested on the touchstone of the cross-examination. In the absence of the “lie detector tests” and advancements of technology in this regard, from time immemorial, it has been the judge who was the lie detector.
The comments of the learned Trial Court that the prosecutrix had given deceptive answers are not only unfair to the prosecutrix but also not desirable in a criminal trial when the trial is yet to commence. The admissibility of the evidence, truthfulness of the statement of the victim or even admissibility of the polygraph test and its extent, could not have been gone into at the stage of framing of charge by the learned Trial Court as settled by way of judicial precedents. The learned Trial Court was not authorized or competent to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge.
In case, the Courts will start relying in a routine manner on polygraph tests, considering them as admissible and reliable at the stage of framing of charge itself, against the victim, the criminal courts will be failing in their duty in following the laid down principles of criminal trial, its stages and what is to be considered and weighed at what stage.
A criminal Court has to explore innumerable factors which could affect the truthfulness of particular testimony of a particular witness as also the accuracy of a particular test at the relevant stage of trial. In case the criminal courts will start discharging accused on the basis of a polygraph test at the stage of charge itself, a criminal trial - instead of testing the veracity of the statement of the victim or prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt - will wriggle down to appreciation of a polygraph test and not the test of the material collected by the prosecution and the statements and testimonies of the victim.
This Court, therefore, holds that it was against the mandate of law to have asked the IO vide the order at the time of grant of anticipatory bail that the victim may be subjected to polygraph test and then the Trial Court judge to have relied on it to reach a conclusion at the stage of charge itself that as per polygraph test, the victim was deceitful and lying whereas the polygraph test of the accused proved that he was not lying on the crucial aspects of his side of story was illegal.
The learned Trial Court had ignored that he was not appreciate the authenticity of polygraph test or lie detection test at the stage of charge and that the criminal trial had to be run as per provisions of CrPC , Indian Evidence Act and judicial precedents and could not have been relegated to be concluded summarily on the basis of the polygraph tests or its result.
Further, the polygraph test could not have been appreciated or relied upon to discharge the accused at the stage of charge as has been done in this case. In the first place, the polygraph test could not have been asked to be conducted by the learned Judge who had granted anticipatory bail to the accused, before whom no such application was moved either by the prosecution or the accused.
Later, during investigation, when the application for conducting polygraph test was moved by the IO before the concerned Court, an order for conducting the same was passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
In cases under Section 376 of IPC, when evidence is available on record with the investigating agency and they are still investigating the case, there can be no interference in the investigation. Without there being any application so moved for conducting polygraph test, the Court cannot direct as to how the investigation has to be conducted at the stage of grant of anticipatory bail itself.
[Paras 30 to 38]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 323/34 & 376—Offences of rape and voluntarily causing hurt with common intention—Discharge of accused primarily on the basis of outcome of the polygraph test at the stage of charge—Erroneous—Result of polygraph test at best could have been considered as a part of investigation and tested during the course of trial on the touchstone of testimonies of prosecutrix and other witnesses, since polygraph test result by itself is not a piece of independent evidence—Statement of witnesses, the complainant and defence of accused and their veracity has never been viewed as technical issues—Judicial determinations are made after appreciation of evidence before the court, at the stage of charge by forming a prima facie view, and at the final stages of trial by determination as to whether or not the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt—A probable truth or a probable lie, presented to the Court through a polygraph test report when neither any medical/expert witness nor the prosecutrix or other witnesses, or electronic evidence etc. had been brought on record by way of their examination, the MLCs and the statements of the prosecutrix and the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC were to be made basis of order on charge and a polygraph test report could not have substituted the said material on record—Enough material on record to proceed against accused for the purpose of trial—Impugned order set aside. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 397 & 401]
[Paras 49 to 53]
Investigation
Process of investigation—Interference by courts—Investigation is the prerogative of the Investigating Agency and the courts usually do not interfere in the process of investigation and do not direct as to what should be investigated and how.
[Para 26]