Dhanbad choose dying probe: Explain why 2 mind profiling exams on accused, HC tells CBI

THE JHARKHAND High Court, which is monitoring the probe into the alleged homicide of Dhanbad Additional Sessions Judge Uttam Anand final 12 months, has pulled up the CBI for conducting mind fingerprinting exams on the 2 accused twice – 4 months aside – which gave contradictory outcomes.

Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad requested the CBI to supply its inner guide or tips on investigation to examine if there may be any provision that permits the take a look at – Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling – a second time if the accused confirmed “intention” to kill within the first.

The BEOS profiling, also called mind fingerprinting, is a neuro-psychological technique of interrogation during which the suspect’s participation in against the law is investigated by finding out his mind’s electrical exercise as a response to the accused being proven a video clip or sound clips amongst others.

On July 28 final 12 months, the choose was on a morning stroll when an autorickshaw veered in direction of him on an empty street and knocked him down. The incident was caught on CCTV cameras.

The police had arrested two suspects, Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma, each residents of Dhanbad, after which the CBI took over the probe and re-registered a case.

In its cost sheet filed in a Dhanbad court docket on October 20, the CBI claimed that Rahul was a “professional thief who keeps looking for vulnerable targets”, and that he and his confederate Lakhan had been “looking for a chance to execute the plan”. It remained silent on what the plan was and on the crime motive.

During the final weekly listening to on January 21 of the CBI’s probe progress, the court docket noticed that within the first mind profiling take a look at on the 2 accused in September final 12 months, considered one of them indicated that he had been given an task to hit the choose. However, the CBI received the exams carried out once more in January this 12 months during which the accused indicated he was not even current when the incident occurred.

The bench mentioned: “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.”

This element is important because the CBI in its cost sheet had not talked about it.

The court docket 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 mentioned. It then requested the CBI what led it to topic the accused to the second BEOS take a look at.

After the CBI mentioned it did in order no clue emerged in between, the bench mentioned, “This court is not in agreement with such explanation of conducting second BEOS test after lapse of about 4 months wherein a complete contradictory recording has come up the said accused persons.”

“This court… deems it fit and proper to see the internal guideline/manual of CBI, formulated for the purpose of carrying out investigation of a case, as to whether there is any guideline to go for subsequent BEOS examination in a case where in the previous examination, the statement of concerned accused has already been recorded showing the intention of killing.”


Recent Articles

Related Stories