LI Network
Published on: October 17, 2023 at 14:13 IST
The Delhi High Court has criticized a trial court in the national capital for exonerating an accused individual in a rape case based on the results of a polygraph test administered to the victim.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma deemed this decision erroneous, emphasizing that the polygraph test’s results should have been considered as part of the investigation and evaluated during the trial in conjunction with the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses.
The court stated that the polygraph test result by itself is not an independent piece of evidence.
The court expressed strong disapproval of the trial court’s decision, which relied on the polygraph test and discharged the accused without the trial even commencing.
This action, according to Justice Sharma, goes against established principles of criminal jurisprudence, as it relies on a probable truth or lie determined through a polygraph test report without considering medical/expert witnesses, prosecutrix statements, electronic evidence, or other relevant materials.
Justice Sharma was addressing the victim’s plea against the trial court’s order, which discharged three accused individuals – one male and two females. The male accused was discharged from the rape charge, while the two female accused were discharged from charges of hurt and criminal intimidation.
The court pointed out that the trial court judge, who had granted interim protection and anticipatory bail to the accused, was neither presiding over the trial nor assessing evidence during the trial. Instead, he was handling bail matters and had independently ordered the polygraph test for both the accused and the victim.
The court emphasized that the admissibility of evidence, the truthfulness of the victim’s statement, and the extent of admissibility of the polygraph test should not have been assessed during the framing of charges. It stated that the trial court was not authorized to conduct a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage.
The court warned that discharging accused solely based on polygraph test results at the charge-framing stage could divert the focus of criminal trials away from the veracity of the victim’s statement and the prosecution’s case.
In the end, the court determined that there was enough evidence on record to proceed with a charge of rape against the male accused. It also found that the charge of causing hurt and common intention was established against the two female accused. Consequently, the court modified the trial court’s order to this extent, reversing the discharge of these accused individuals.