Forensic significance of Deception Detection Tests (DDTs)

BAL6.4 Forensic science and medical jurisprudence

Academic Year: 2023-24

Semester: VI

Submitted by
AARYA KHOPKAR
UID: UG21-01

Submitted to
Dr. Veena Rohan Josh

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

JANUARY,2024.

1
 Table of contents

Sr.No. Particulars Page. No.

I Introduction 3

II Research objective 3

III Research question 3

IV Research methodology 3

V Types of DDT 4

VI The Constitutional Quandary of Deception 8

Detection Tests (DDTs) in India

VII Conclusion 14

VIII Bibliography 15

2
 I. Introduction
The quest for truth in forensic investigations is paramount. Deception Detection Tests
(DDTs), encompassing techniques like polygraphs, narcoanalysis, and brain mapping, have
emerged as controversial instruments in this pursuit. Often referred to as "guilty knowledge
tests," DDTs promise to expose deception or unlock hidden memories that could be pivotal to
cracking a case. However, their use presents a complex challenge, balancing their potential
forensic significance with significant ethical and legal concerns.
This paper delves into the intricate world of DDTs, conducting a meticulous analysis of their
forensic significance. We begin with a historical overview, tracing the use of these techniques
back to ancient civilizations. We will then dissect the fundamental principles behind each test,
meticulously evaluating their scientific validity and limitations.
A crucial point of contention surrounding DDTs revolves around the issue of consent. While
some argue that voluntary consent mitigates ethical concerns, the very definition of
"voluntary consent" in the context of DDTs remains a subject of legal debate. This ambiguity
raises concerns about potential coercion and the violation of fundamental rights, particularly
the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

II. Research Objective

This project embarks on a critical analysis of DDTs within the realm of forensics. We will
dissect the theoretical foundations of each test, scrutinizing their scientific validity and
limitations. By weaving together legal pronouncements, particularly the landmark Indian
Supreme Court judgment on DDTs, we will assess their compatibility with fundamental
rights like the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy.

III. Research Questions

Through this exploration, we aim to illuminate the following key questions:
 Do DDTs offer a reliable glimpse into the suspect's mind, or are they prone to errors
and manipulation?
 What are the ethical ramifications of subjecting individuals to potentially intrusive
and coercive procedures?
 How do legal frameworks, particularly in the Indian context, navigate the delicate
balance between investigative demands and individual rights?

IV. Research Methodology

This project will examine the use of Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) in India through a
legal and ethical lens. Data will be collected from primary and secondary sources:

3
  Primary Sources: The Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act, relevant case law,
and police manuals (if available) regarding DDTs.
 Secondary Sources: Scholarly articles, legal journals, forensic science books, and
government reports on DDTs in India.
This research will analyze the legal framework surrounding DDTs and the ethical
considerations associated with their use in the Indian forensic system.
V. Types of DDTs:
Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) are a category of forensic tools used to assess an
individual's truthfulness during an investigation. These tests rely on the physiological or
neurological responses believed to be associated with deception. Common types of DDTs
include:
Polygraph Test
The polygraph test, often referred to as a lie detector test (though not entirely accurate), is a
tool used to assess deception by measuring physiological responses. It records changes in
heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, skin conductance, and sometimes even muscle activity
during questioning.
A Historical Perspective:
The concept of a lie detection device has a long history. The first such test is believed to have
been developed in the 19th century by an Italian criminologist, Cesare Lombroso. His
machine measured changes in blood pressure during questioning. Similar devices were later
created by others, including an American clinician and a California police officer. The
modern polygraph machine, incorporating the measurement of additional physiological
responses, was further refined by Keeler who included a psycho-galvanometer to record
electrical skin resistance.
The Theory:
The underlying assumption is that lying triggers a state of anxiety or arousal, which manifests
in these physiological changes. A trained examiner analyzes these responses to identify
deception.
The Process:
A polygraph test involves three stages:
1. Pre-test Interview: The examiner gathers background information, explains the test
procedure, and ensures the subject understands the questions. This helps establish a
baseline for physiological responses.
2. Chart Recording: Sensors are attached to the subject to record physiological
responses while a series of questions are asked. These include control questions
(known truths and lies) and relevant questions about the issue being investigated.

4
 3. Diagnosis: The examiner analyzes the recordings, considering both the responses and
the subject's overall behavior, to reach a conclusion about deception.
Significance and Limitations:
 Potential Benefits:
o Can provide leads or encourage confessions in investigations.

o May help clear innocent suspects.

 Drawbacks:
o Lacks scientific certainty - Physiological changes can be caused by factors
other than lying, like anxiety, fear, nervousness, depression or pre-existing
conditions.
o Susceptible to countermeasures - Skilled individuals can manipulate their
responses to deceive the test.
o Ethical and legal concerns - Questions about test fairness and the admissibility
of results in court.

Reliability Issues:
 Confounding factors: Emotions like fear, nervousness, or even physical discomfort
can mimic deception responses. The test cannot distinguish between the physiological
response caused by a lie and the response caused by these other factors.
 Examiner bias: Interpretation of results relies on the examiner's expertise, which can
be subjective1.
 Countermeasures: Deception techniques or physiological control strategies can be
used to suppress responses, potentially fooling the test. Some people are naturally
better at controlling their physiological responses than others.
Polygraph tests remain controversial. While they may offer investigative leads, their accuracy
is debatable. Their limitations necessitate a cautious approach. Other forensic methods and
careful investigation are crucial for reliable truth-seeking. Polygraph tests are not a foolproof
way to detect deception and should be used with considerable caution.
Narcoanalysis
Narcoanalysis, a technique with a shrouded history (coined by Horseley), uses psychoactive
drugs, primarily barbiturates like sodium pentothal, to induce a trance-like state in a subject.
The goal? To access repressed memories or elicit truthful information in criminal
investigations.

1
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question123.htm

5
The theory behind narcoanalysis hinges on the idea that a drug like sodium pentothal can act
as a truth serum by:
1. Lowering inhibitions: The drug reduces a subject's conscious filters, making it
harder to lie or fabricate stories.
2. Enhancing memory access: With inhibitions lowered, supposedly repressed
memories, including truthful ones, become more accessible.
3. Impairing deception: The drug makes it difficult for a person to consciously
construct and maintain a lie.
The Process:
1. Drug Injection: Sodium pentothal, often referred to as a "truth serum," is
administered intravenously.
2. Hypnotic State: The drug aims to create a hypnotic state where the subject's
imagination is supposedly neutralized.
3. Information Gathering: The examiner attempts to uncover the subject's hidden
memories, desires, and impulses under the influence of the drug2.
A Seductive (But Flawed) Promise:
 Potential Benefits:
o May unearth repressed memories that could be relevant to investigations.

o In rare cases, it might lead to confessions or new investigative leads.

The Dark Side of Narcoanalysis:

 Scientific Uncertainty:
o The effectiveness of "truth serums" is highly questionable. The drugs can
impair judgment and lead to false confessions under pressure.
o There's no guarantee that information revealed is factual.

 Susceptibility to Suggestion: Subjects in a trance-like state can be highly suggestible

to the examiner's questions, potentially leading to fabricated information.
 Focus on memories, not truth: The theory doesn't guarantee truthful information, as
memories themselves can be distorted.
 Individual variations: People react differently to the drug, making the results
unreliable.
Physical and Mental Risks:
o Overdose can lead to coma or even death.

2
https://dictionary.apa.org/narcoanalysis

6
 o The psychological impact of the drug and the interrogation can be severe.

Ethical Dilemmas:
o The use of drugs without informed consent raises significant ethical concerns.

o Methods used during the trance, like forceful stimulation to elicit responses,
are considered cruel and inhumane.
o Statements made under the influence are not considered reliable or voluntary
in court.
Narcoanalysis is a controversial and unreliable method for extracting information. While it
may offer some leads for investigation, its limitations and ethical concerns far outweigh its
potential benefits. In the pursuit of truth, the justice system should rely on more reliable
methods and thorough investigation techniques.

Brain Mapping
Brain mapping is a technique that measures electrical activity in the brain using electrodes
placed on the scalp. It aims to identify specific patterns of brain waves associated with
recognition or memory.
The Theory Behind It:
The theory behind brain mapping is that if a stimulus is related to something the subject has
seen or experienced before, it will trigger a P300 wave. This could be because the stimulus
evokes a memory, a sense of familiarity, or even an emotional response.
The P300 Wave:
The P300 wave is a specific type of electrical brain wave that appears to be generated when a
person recognizes a familiar stimulus, such as a person's face, a sound, or an image.
The Test Procedure:
 Electrodes are attached to the subject's scalp.
 The subject is shown a series of images or sounds, some of which may be related to a
crime or investigation.
 The computer monitors the subject's brain activity, particularly looking for P300
waves.
Limitations and Concerns:
 Scientific Uncertainty: The effectiveness of brain mapping in lie detection is still
under debate. The presence or absence of P300 waves can be influenced by factors
unrelated to guilt or innocence, such as anxiety, attention, and fatigue.

7
  Ethical Issues: Brain mapping raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding its use
in criminal investigations. The test is not foolproof, and there are concerns about
potential violations of privacy and due process.
 Focus on Recognition, Not Truth: Brain mapping detects recognition of a stimulus,
not necessarily truthfulness. A P300 wave could be triggered by seeing a crime scene
image on the news, even if the subject is not involved3.

The Science Behind Deception Detection Tests (DDTs)

Studies by psychiatrists and legal experts raise concerns about the scientific basis of DDTs.
I. False Confessions: Individuals who are functioning normally might resist confessing,
while those struggling with depression, guilt, or anxiety might confess under the
influence of the drugs used in DDTs. This suggests the tests are unreliable and can
lead to false confessions.
II. Memory and Emotions: DDTs rely on accessing repressed memories or truthful
responses under the influence of drugs. However, the process of memory retrieval
during drug-induced states is complex and can be influenced by emotions like fear or
guilt.
III. Question Manipulation: The way questions are phrased during a DDT can influence
the subject's responses. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the results and the
potential for manipulation.
Overall, the science behind DDTs is far from clear. The tests might trigger false confessions
and are susceptible to emotional and questioning biases. These factors cast doubt on their
reliability in uncovering the truth.
VI. The Constitutional Quandary of Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) in India
In India, the use of Deception Detection Tests (DDTs), which include techniques like
narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain mapping, is a contentious issue with significant
implications for individual rights. The debate centres around whether these tests violate
fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) and the Tightrope Walk with Article 20(3)
The tension between the use of Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) and the right against self-
incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution presents a complex legal
issue.
Article 20(3): A Wall Against Coerced Confessions
This article safeguards individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves.
The focus lies on "compulsion," interpreted as physical duress, not simply a pressured mental

3
https://www.icliniq.com/articles/neurological-health/brain-mapping

8
state. However, the article acknowledges situations where external factors can manipulate
someone into involuntary confessions.
Voluntary Consent:
The legal use of DDTs hinges on obtaining uncoerced consent. If a court orders a DDT and
the accused consents freely, it might not violate Article 20(3). However, this concept raises
questions for DDTs' forensic significance:
 Truly Voluntary? Facing criminal charges can make "voluntary consent"
questionable. Can the accused truly give consent free from pressure or implicit
threats?
 Scope of Information: Statements obtained with consent might be considered
confessions, but safeguards are needed. The test shouldn't delve into irrelevant
information, compromising the test's focus and potentially revealing unrelated
incriminating details.
 Double-Edged Sword: While DDTs might reduce instances of police coercion, they
could become a subtler form of pressure, impacting the test's reliability and forensic
value.
Can the Right Be Waived?
Some argue that Article 20(3) offers a privilege the accused can waive with consent. This
aligns with the right to offer oneself as a witness (similar to Section 342A of the Criminal
Procedure Code). However, refusing a DDT shouldn't imply guilt, casting doubt on the test's
role in establishing truth.
Immunity
The right against self-incrimination protects individuals from incriminating evidence
obtained through compulsion. This immunity doesn't apply to evidence gathered without
coercion, even if the accused chooses not to testify. However, the potential psychological
pressure of DDTs raises questions about the information's true voluntariness and its
admissibility as evidence.
Voluntary Confessions: The Cornerstone of Admissibility
For a confession to be admissible as evidence and contribute to the forensic significance of
DDTs, it must appear to be made freely. The investigator recording the confession needs to be
certain the accused's will wasn't compromised. This requirement further complicates the use
of DDTs in establishing reliable and legally sound evidence.
Landmark Judgments:
Dinesh Dalmia v. State by Spe, CBI (2006) 4: The Madras High Court offered a contrasting
view. It suggested the possibility of using scientific methods, including DDTs, to discover the

4
2006CRILJ2401, 2006 CRI. L. J. 2401

9
truth, even without the accused's participation. However, this opinion has not been widely
adopted.
Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr (2010) 5 landmark case by the Supreme Court of
India serves as a cornerstone for understanding the legal boundaries surrounding the use of
Deception Detection Tests (DDTs) in criminal investigations.
The Investigative Tools Under Scrutiny:
 Narcoanalysis: Involves administering sodium pentothal, a drug that induces a
hypnotic state, supposedly making subjects less inhibited and more likely to reveal
truths.
 Brain Mapping (BEAP): Measures brain activity in response to stimuli, aiming to
identify if the subject recognizes something related to the crime scene.
 Polygraph Test: Measures physiological responses like respiration, blood pressure,
and sweat to assess potential deception.
The Fundamental Rights at Stake:
 Article 20(3): Right Against Self-Incrimination: This right protects individuals
from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. The Court held that DDTs,
by extracting information under pressure or drug influence, violate this right.
 Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty: This broader right encompasses
various aspects. The Court argued that involuntary DDTs violate personal liberty by
lacking "substantive due process" (fair procedures) and potentially causing mental or
physical harm.
Arguments Presented:
 Petitioners (Challenging DDTs):
o Testimonial Compulsion: DDTs coerce individuals to reveal incriminating
information, violating the right against self-incrimination.
o Lack of Due Process: The tests are not conducted with proper safeguards and
respect for individual rights.
o Privacy Violations: Both physical and mental privacy are compromised
during DDTs.
o Scientific Limitations: The accuracy and reliability of DDT results are
questionable.
 Respondents (Supporting DDTs):
o Investigative Tool: DDTs can be helpful for gathering information and
preventing crimes.

5
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1974, 2010

10
 o Minimal Bodily Harm: The tests themselves are claimed not to cause
significant physical harm.
o Limited Use: The information obtained would be used for investigation, not
as direct evidence in court.
The Court's Reasoning and Decision:
 Importance of Individual Autonomy: The Court emphasized the right to choose
silence or speech without external pressure. Involuntary statements are unreliable and
violate human dignity.
 Expanded Right Against Self-Incrimination: This right extends beyond courtrooms
to situations where charges might ultimately be filed, encompassing suspects and
witnesses in investigations.
 Right to Privacy as a Shield: The right to privacy includes both physical and mental
aspects. Involuntary DDTs intrude on mental privacy by forcing responses and
potentially causing psychological trauma.
 Restriction on DDTs: The Court ruled that DDTs can only be administered with
the informed consent of the accused, obtained before a Judicial Magistrate in the
presence of a lawyer. This ensures awareness of the process and potential
consequences.
 Limited Use of Information: Statements made during DDTs obtained with informed
consent would not be considered confessions and could not be used as evidence in
court. This protects individuals from being incriminated by involuntary disclosures6.
The Broader Impact:
This judgment significantly restricts the use of DDTs in India, prioritizing individual rights
over potentially unreliable and coercive investigative methods. It sets a strong precedent for
protecting the rights of suspects and witnesses during criminal investigations.
Additional Nuances:
 The judgment highlights the tension between investigative needs and individual
rights. While some argue that DDTs could lead to confessions or new investigative
leads, the Court prioritized the potential for abuse and violation of fundamental rights.
This landmark case reinforces the importance of individual rights in criminal investigations.
While DDTs might hold some investigative appeal, their limitations and potential for
coercion render them incompatible with fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian
Constitution. The Court's decision sets a clear standard for informed consent and protects
individuals from the involuntary extraction of information.
Current Status:

6
https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/selvi-vs-state-of-karnataka

11
The legal position on DDTs remains somewhat ambiguous. The Selvi judgment emphasizes
informed consent, but some lower courts may hold different views. Overall, DDTs are not
widely accepted as reliable evidence in Indian courts.

 Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr (2010): This landmark judgment
established that DDTs can only be conducted with informed consent. Those who
choose to participate must be able to consult with a lawyer and understand the
potential consequences.
 Nandini Sathpathy vs P.L. Dani (1978)7: The Supreme Court held that no one can
be forced to make self-incriminating statements.
Right to Health
 DDTs can have adverse health effects, including potential for coma or psychological
trauma.
 Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty, which
encompasses the right to health.
Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
 DDTs can be intrusive, causing physical or psychological harm.
 The lack of informed consent raises concerns about privacy violations.
 Forcing someone to undergo a DDT might be considered "cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment."
Right to be Silent
 The right to silence is violated when someone is pressured or forced to take a DDT.
 This right is essential in ensuring a fair trial and protecting individuals from self-
incrimination.
Right to Privacy
 Selvi vs State of Karnataka & Anr (2010): The Supreme Court ruled that using
DDTs without consent violates the right to privacy.
 This right protects an individual's autonomy over their bodily and mental integrity.
The legal use of DDTs in India remains complex. While they might hold investigative
potential, the potential violation of several fundamental rights makes them highly
controversial. The Selvi judgment prioritizes informed consent, but further legal clarification
might be needed for consistent application.

7
1978 AIR 1025, 1978 SCR (3) 608

12
Safeguards for Reliable DDTs
To ensure the potential benefits of DDTs are realized while protecting individual rights,
several measures are crucial:
 Exhaustive Investigation Before DDTs: A thorough initial investigation should be
conducted before seeking court permission for DDTs. This helps narrow down the
information sought and allows the court to assess the test's necessity.
 Court Permission as a Gatekeeper: Only court-sanctioned DDTs should be
conducted. Denying permission, even with the accused's consent, protects against
coercion and ensures the test is truly a last resort.
 Time Limits and Single Test: Strict time limits should be set for conducting DDTs.
Additionally, the test should be administered only once per accused to minimize
psychological pressure and ensure the results are reliable. Violations of these
guidelines should be penalized.
The Current Landscape: Flawed Methods and Ethical Concerns
 The current reliance on "voluntary consent" for DDTs is problematic. The pressure of
facing charges can make such consent questionable.
 The lack of standardization and scientific certainty surrounding DDTs raises doubts
about their accuracy and reliability as evidence.
 The use of violent interrogation methods ("third-degree torture") necessitates
safeguards to prevent DDTs from becoming a more subtle form of coercion.
The Path Forward: Balancing Innovation and Fundamental Rights
 Clear and enforceable guidelines are needed to ensure truly voluntary consent for
DDTs.
 The scope of questioning during DDTs should be strictly limited to the case at hand to
prevent irrelevant information extraction.
 Robust scientific advancements and standardized protocols are necessary to improve
the reliability of DDT results before they can be considered strong legal evidence.
The Role of the Supreme Court: Charting a Course
 The Supreme Court can play a pivotal role by establishing a committee to
comprehensively analyze DDTs. This committee should:
o Evaluate the pros and cons of DDTs, taking into account scientific, ethical,
legal, and human rights perspectives.
o Develop clear and enforceable guidelines for administering DDTs, ensuring
they are conducted ethically and with genuine consent.
Redefining "Voluntary Consent" and the Scope of Article 20(3):

13
  A broader definition of "voluntary consent" in the context of DDTs might be
considered, provided it is accompanied by stringent safeguards against coercion.
 The interpretation of Article 20(3) might require nuanced consideration to account for
advancements in investigative techniques while upholding the core principles of self-
incrimination protection.
Incorporating Concerns Raised About Investigative Practices:
The use of DDTs cannot be a justification for overlooking the importance of reforming
current investigative practices in India. Eradicating custodial violence and ensuring suspects'
rights are upheld during interrogations remains a critical priority.
The Evolving Debate and the Importance of Research
The debate surrounding DDTs in India highlights the ongoing tension between embracing
scientific advancements and upholding fundamental rights. Continued research on the
scientific validity of DDTs and their potential impact on the Indian legal system is essential to
inform future decisions.

VII. Conclusion:
The path forward for DDTs in India remains uncertain. The Supreme Court's decisions will
significantly influence their future. A cautious embrace, contingent on scientific
advancements and robust legal safeguards, might pave the way for their ethical use However,
the potential for manipulation and violation of fundamental rights necessitates careful
consideration before fully integrating them into the Indian legal system. Ultimately, the
question remains: Are DDTs a step towards a more efficient legal system, or a slippery slope
towards injustice? The answer lies in the choices made in near future.
The forensic significance of DDTs in India hinges on a delicate balance. While they might
hold investigative value, upholding the right against self-incrimination and ensuring ethical
practices are paramount. Only through a measured approach that prioritizes scientific
advancements, robust legal frameworks, and unwavering commitment to individual rights can
DDTs potentially become a legitimate tool within the Indian forensic landscape.

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Gupta, Subhash C. (2018). The Constitution of India (2nd Ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa Nagpur.
Articles

14
The Legal validity of Deception Detection Tests in India
https://www.brainboosterarticles.com/post/the-legal-validity-of-deception-detection-test-in-
india
Admissibility of Deception Detection Tests in India
https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/S.-Shridula.pdf
Deception Detection Techniques In Contemporary Criminal Justice System
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-disintegration-of-the-criminal-justice-system/
article32785928.ece
Cases
Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr (2010)
Nandini Sathpathy vs P.L. Dani (1978)

15