On Thursday, December 28, Delhi Police filed a motion with a local court requesting authorization to administer a polygraph test to each of the six individuals detained about the Parliament Security Breach on December 13. Judge Hardeep Kaur of the Additional Sessions heard the application. The court scheduled a hearing for January 2 and noted that the attorneys for a few defendants were not present.
During the plea hearing on Parliament Security Breach, the six accused—Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Neelam Devi Azad, Lalit Jha, and Mahesh Kumawat—were also brought before the court. The police detained the six until January 5.
What is a polygraph test?
During a polygraph test, also called a lie detector test, physiological markers including blood pressure, pulse, and respiration are recorded as the subject of the examination answers questions. Following each response, forensic experts assess the veracity or falsity of the accused person’s assertions based on the recorded readings.
In addition to discovering the full conspiracy, the detectives need to obtain more information to strengthen their case and acquire more proof.
According to the source, investigators propose that if the polygraph test is not successful in producing the expected findings, the police could request a Narco test, a move that has been taken in several previous cases.
Narco analysis, sometimes referred to as truth serum, is a test in which the subject is given an intravenous medication (such as sodium pentothal, scopolamine, or sodium amytal) to induce varying degrees of anesthesia. The person becomes less restrained and more prone to revealing details that they would normally keep private when they are not hypnotized. When more evidence is insufficient to create a clear picture of the case, investigating authorities use this criteria.
The use of Deception Detection Tests (DDT) on suspects and accused without their consent, such as brain mapping, narcoanalysis, and polygraphs, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2010 because it infringed their right against self-incrimination.
Key updates on the Parliament Security Breach Case
The public prosecutor had previously claimed that Kumawat was attempting to instigate chaos throughout the nation and was engaged in the destruction of cell phones. The public prosecutor in the Parliament Security Breach case had submitted that Kumawat’s custody was necessary to uncover the conspiracy as a whole, and the court had underlined that Kumawat had been a part of it for the previous two years.
It was further argued that the accused intended to incite chaos throughout the nation to pressure the government to comply with their unlawful and unfair demands.
“He spent the last two years communicating with others who were involved in the conspiracy’s development. The public prosecutor said that he had assisted Jha, the conspiracy’s architect, in destroying cell phones to disguise the bigger plot and destroy evidence.
On December 16, Kumawat was taken into custody on suspicion of destroying evidence and engaging in the criminal conspiracy. On December 13, the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror assault, there was a Parliament security breach in the Lok Sabha, which was planned and carried out by five individuals.
Before being overcome by the MPs gathered in the House, two of them, Sagar and Manoranjan, leaped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery and burst yellow smoke canisters. Outside Parliament, two more people, Neelam and Amol, also detonated smoke canisters and displayed signs.
According to insiders, Jha—who is thought to be the brains behind the entire scheme—reportedly left Parliament with the other four people’s cell phones in tow. This caused a serious parliament security breach situation.
