Jharkhand High Court, monitoring the probe into the alleged murder of Dhanbad Additional Sessions Judge Uttam Anand last year according to newspaper reports has pulled up the CBI for conducting brain fingerprinting tests on the two accused twice – four months apart – which gave contradictory results.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad asked the CBI to produce its internal manual or guidelines on investigation to check if there is any provision that allows the test – Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling – a second time, if the accused showed “intention” to kill in the first.
Jharkhand High Court, questioned the CBI for conducting brain fingerprinting tests on the accused twice which yielded contradictory results. The court has asked CBI to explain why the test was conducted a second time if the accused showed “intention” to kill in the first.
On May 6, 2010 India’s Supreme Court in Smt. Selvi & Ors Vs State of Karnataka Judgment on 5 May 2010. (Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004) has determined that a “truth” drug and other investigative techniques used in police questioning are illegal. The “truth” drug, sodium penthanol, is injected into suspects for interrogations in the belief it inhibits a person’s ability to lie. But the court ruled against its use, even if a suspect consents to the “truth” test, it cannot be used as an evidence. Narco, brain mapping and polygraph tests are illegal and a violation of personal liberty.
Bain finger printing and brain mapping: Another tool now banned is the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP), also known as brain mapping, The technique which analyzes brain waves is not used frequently. The BEOS profiling, also known as brain fingerprinting, is a neuro-psychological method of interrogation in which the suspect’s participation in a crime is investigated by studying his brain’s electrical activity as a response to the accused being shown a video clip or sound clips among others.
Earlier dismissal of CBI theory: The Jharkhand high court on earlier had dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation theory that Dhanbad additional district judge Uttam Anand was possibly knocked down by an auto-rickshaw during a bid to snatch his mobile phone, and sought a report of all technical investigation, including the narco test on the accused, carried out in the matter till date.
Suo moto cognisance by court of the incident: The Supreme Court and the Jharkhand high court took suo motu cognisance of the hit-and-run incident after CCTV footage showed the three-wheeler swerving on an empty road to knock him down.
CBI Probe commenced on July 31: The CBI took over the probe on July 31 after the top court said the incident had larger ramifications for the independence of the judiciary. The state government had also recommended an investigation by the central agency into the case.
Incident: On July 28 last year, the judge was on a morning walk when an autorickshaw veered towards him on an empty road and knocked him down. The incident was caught on CCTV cameras. The police had arrested two suspects, Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma, both residents of Dhanbad, after which the CBI took over the probe and re-registered a case.
Chargesheet: In its charge sheet filed in a Dhanbad court on October 20, the CBI claimed that Rahul was a “professional thief who keeps looking for vulnerable targets”, and that he and his accomplice Lakhan had been “looking for a chance to execute the plan”. It remained silent on what the plan was and on the crime motive.
CBI probe progress: During the last weekly hearing on January 21 of the CBI’s probe progress, the court observed that in the first brain profiling test on the two accused in September last year, one of them indicated that he had been given an assignment to hit the judge. However, the CBI got the tests conducted again in January this year in which the accused indicated he was not even present when the incident happened.
U Turn in two reports observed by court: The bench said: “This court has perused BEOS report wherein the results of two accused persons… to the effect that one of the accused persons indicated that he was given an assignment to hit Judgesahab, i.e., late Uttam Anand. It has also been stated that the said accused person had done recce of Judgesahab’s residence. The said accused person took help of another accused person to execute his plan. On 28.07.2021, when they saw Judgesahab, one of the accused persons asked another accused person to accelerate his auto’s speed and thereafter, one of the accused persons had seen Judgesahab falling down on the road with the hit of auto.” as reported in newspapers.
The court then cited the second BEOS report. “We have also seen the subsequent BEOS… he (the accused) took U-turn in the subsequent BEOS report…, stating that he was not present in the auto…. He also revealed that he has no idea about the accident,” the bench said. It then asked the CBI what led it to subject the accused to the second BEOS test.
HON’BLE MR CHIEF JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN
Chief Justice, Patna High Court
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Judge, Patna High Court
