Evidentiary Value Of Polygraph Tests In Nepalese Courts
Evidentiary Value of Polygraph Tests in Nepalese Courts
A polygraph test measures physiological responses (heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, skin conductivity) to questions asked to a suspect. While polygraphs can indicate stress or deception, their reliability is scientifically debated.
In Nepal, polygraph tests are not automatically admissible as conclusive evidence in criminal trials. They are generally considered investigative tools rather than formal evidence under the Evidence Act 1974 or the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Courts may sometimes consider polygraph results to corroborate other evidence, but they cannot replace direct proof.
Legal Framework:
Evidence Act 1974: Only facts proven by legally admissible evidence can form the basis for conviction.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Polygraph tests may be conducted with the consent of the accused for investigative purposes but are not binding.
1. HMG vs Rajesh Thapa (Murder Investigation)
Facts:
Rajesh Thapa was accused of murdering a neighbor. Police requested a polygraph test to assess his statements about his whereabouts on the day of the crime.
Role of Polygraph:
The polygraph indicated “deception” when asked about his alibi.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court of Nepal ruled that the polygraph test could not be considered conclusive evidence of guilt. The conviction was based on eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence, not the polygraph.
Lesson:
Polygraph tests are admissible only as investigative aids in Nepal, not as primary evidence.
2. HMG vs Sunita Shrestha (Fraud Case)
Facts:
Sunita Shrestha was accused of defrauding a cooperative society. The accused consented to a polygraph test conducted by police investigators.
Role of Polygraph:
The polygraph suggested truthful responses to most questions, but deception regarding financial transactions.
Court Decision:
The court explicitly stated that polygraph results cannot form the basis of conviction. Instead, the conviction relied on accounting evidence, bank statements, and witness testimonies.
Lesson:
Polygraph results can guide investigation but cannot replace documentary or testimonial proof in court.
3. HMG vs Krishna Lama (Sexual Assault Allegation)
Facts:
The accused was charged with sexual assault. Police conducted a polygraph test to evaluate the accused’s denial of the allegations.
Role of Polygraph:
Results indicated deception on questions regarding his presence at the scene.
Court Decision:
The court rejected polygraph results as evidence due to their scientific limitations and emphasized reliance on medical reports, forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony.
Lesson:
Nepalese courts are cautious about admitting polygraph evidence in sexual offense cases, given potential for false positives and influence by stress.
4. HMG vs Ram Bahadur Basnet (Kidnapping Case)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Basnet was accused of kidnapping for ransom. Police conducted a polygraph test to verify his statements regarding the victim’s location.
Role of Polygraph:
The results were inconclusive: some answers showed stress but did not clearly indicate deception.
Court Decision:
The court ruled the polygraph test could only be considered as part of investigative materials, not admissible in formal proceedings. Conviction was based on witnesses, ransom messages, and forensic tracking of ransom payments.
Lesson:
In Nepal, inconclusive polygraph tests have no evidentiary value and cannot influence judicial decisions.
5. HMG vs Suresh K.C. (Theft and Burglary)
Facts:
Suresh K.C. was accused of stealing electronics from a warehouse. Police requested a polygraph test to examine his statements about accomplices.
Role of Polygraph:
The polygraph indicated stress, but results were inconsistent.
Court Decision:
The court reiterated that polygraph results cannot be used to convict an accused. They may be used to guide the direction of investigation, such as identifying leads for corroborative evidence.
Lesson:
Polygraphs are considered investigative aids only in Nepal, not formal evidence under the Evidence Act.
6. HMG vs Anju Rai (Cyber Fraud Case)
Facts:
Anju Rai was accused of cyber fraud involving phishing attacks. The police conducted a polygraph test to verify her claims about involvement.
Role of Polygraph:
The polygraph showed signs of stress on certain questions, suggesting possible deception.
Court Decision:
The court clearly stated that polygraph evidence cannot form part of trial evidence. Conviction was secured using digital forensic evidence, IP tracing, and banking records.
Lesson:
Polygraph tests may support investigative hypotheses but cannot substitute for hard evidence, particularly in cybercrime cases.
Key Lessons from the Cases
Polygraph tests are admissible as investigative tools but not as substantive evidence in Nepalese courts.
Convictions cannot rely solely on polygraph results; courts require corroborative evidence such as eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, or digital records.
Polygraph results are not infallible; courts recognize limitations due to psychological, physiological, and environmental factors.
Consent of the accused is usually required for polygraph testing.
Courts may reference polygraph results to evaluate investigative quality or highlight inconsistencies but not for legal judgment.
Conclusion
In Nepal, the evidentiary value of polygraph tests is limited:
Primary use: Investigation and interrogation aid
Not admissible for conviction: Cannot replace eyewitness, forensic, or documentary evidence
Corroborative role: Only supports other admissible evidence if relevant
The trend in Nepalese jurisprudence is cautious acceptance of polygraph tests for investigation but strict exclusion from formal evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments