Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: brain mapping test in Karan vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2024Matching Fragments
3. The alleged offence is said to have been committed on the intervening night of 17.10.2022 and 18.10.2022. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has suspected the complainant i.e., the petitioner herein as well as his father and hence, he subjected all of them to Polygraphic test as well as Brain Electrical Acclamation Egneture Profiling (B.E.O.S) test. It is alleged that in B.E.O.S test, the petitioner has narrated regarding he committing offence and remembered slitting the throat of NC: 2024:KHC-K:1361 the deceased with the weapon and cleaning the weapon by muffler and sneaking out of the room. On the basis of this Brain Mapping Test, the Investigating Officer has implicated the petitioner in the instant case. He was arrested on 16.07.2023 after obtaining report of the Brain Mapping Test and then after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
4. The petitioner was produced before the concerned Court and was remanded to custody. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the entire case of the prosecution is based on Brain Mapping Test and Brain Mapping Test was not conducted as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex NC: 2024:KHC-K:1361 Court reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263 (SELVI AND OTHERS Vs STATE Of KARNATAKA). He would assert that the consent of the petitioner in presence of the learned Magistrate and his counsel was not obtained and hence, Brain Mapping Test cannot be accepted and now only recovery is there, which is based on circumstantial evidence. The chain of the links is required to be proved by the prosecution and since investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down and considering lapses in the investigation, he has sought for admitting the petitioner on regular bail as he undertakes to abide by the terms & conditions to be imposed by this Court.
9. The evidence also discloses that the Investigating Officer did not get any clue and since the murder was in the house itself wherein the complainant, NC: 2024:KHC-K:1361 petitioner and the uncle of the deceased were residing along with the deceased. He suspected them and on that suspicion, he subjected them to Polygraphic Test and Brain Mapping Test. On the basis of Brain Mapping Test, it is alleged that he secured clue of petitioner slitting the throat of deceased and destroying the evidence. Hence, he has implicated him and subsequently, submitted the charge sheet.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the guidelines laid down by the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in decision reported in Selvi's case (supra) and argued that these guidelines issued in para No.265 were not at all complied by the Investigating Officer.
11. The learned HCGP would contend that the consent was given by the petitioner and other two persons i.e., the complainant and uncle of the deceased for Brain Mapping Test and produced the copies of the same. She NC: 2024:KHC-K:1361 would also contend that the learned Magistrate has also granted permission for Brain Mapping Test.