Self-Inculpatory Statement Given In Lie Detector Test Can't Be Used As Material Evidence Against Accused: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that self-incriminatory statement given by an accused while being subjected to lie-detector test cannot be used against him as a "material evidence".

A division bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi clarified that "conducting of lie a detector test is merely an aid in investigation in case the accused discloses any such relevant information."

The observation was made while acquitting a doctor booked for murder of his colleague. It was alleged that he intoxicated both the complainant and deceased, and later strangulated the deceased. Though the drug was detected in deceased's post mortem, the complainant was not subjected to any medical examination.

The Court dubbed this as a missing link in the chain of circumstances alleged against accused doctor and said his mere refusal to undergo lie detection test would not be a key to fill this missing link. It observed,

"With respect to the accused not subjecting himself to a lie detector test, it may be relevant to note that a lie detector test can be administered only upon consent of an accused. Mere refusal would not provide a missing link in the chain of circumstantial evidence."

The court, after referring to various judgments said that a perusal of the same established, that where a murder has been committed in secrecy, it is unlikely that the accused would become garrulous after the commission of the offence and confess to having committed the offence to another person.

"Further, it is settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a somewhat weak piece of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record," it added.

The Court was hearing the appeal of Dr. Yatender Pal against conviction for murder under Section 302 and sentence of life imprisonment. He was also convicted along with Section 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) IPC.

According to prosecution, a complaint was filed by the hostel mate against the appellant alleging that he placed deceased Dr. Harsh Soni's dead body in complainant's room after strangulating Soni to death.

It was alleged that Pal was nursing grudge against Soni because because the latter used to tease him by calling names.

The Prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidences and the extrajudicial confession made to the complainant in whose room the body was found.

The bench noted that the statement of the complainant Dr. Mohit Singla appears to be a self-serving one as he would have to explain how the body of the deceased was found in his room. "Therefore, it is very much possible that he has set up a version of the accused having made a confession before him."

Speaking for the bench Justice Bedi highlighted that witness who purportedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused on the night intervening is admittedly a close relative of the maternal uncle of the deceased who is also a recovery witness.

"Even if his evidence is to be considered to be true, he saw the accused in the company of the deceased at 10.00 PM and the body of the deceased was discovered between 7-8 AM in the morning. There is a substantial gap of 9/10 hours between the 'last seen' evidence of this witness and the discovery of the body. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that it is the accused alone who could have committed the offence in question," the Court opined.

With respect to motive, the bench said that as per the prosecution case, the accused was being called names on account of his inability to perform sexual intercourse. "The motive as sought to be set out is far-fetched," it observed.

As regards the recovery of two pieces of rope one of which was used for strangulation and the wallet containing the personal effects of the deceased the bench said, "it is nothing but a crude padding by the prosecution."

It does not stand to reason that the accused would retain a piece of rope used in the occurrence or that he would take away the wallet of the deceased and retain the same after leaving the dead body in the room of the complainant, added the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of all the charges framed against him.

 Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant

Mr. R.S. Arya, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

 Title: YATENDER PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 69

Click here to read/download the order