In the shadowy realm of crime, the human brain is not simply a cunning accomplice. It can also be the ultimate snitch. In the last two decades, ‘Electrical oscillation signature of the brain (BEOS) profiling’, also known as ‘brain mapping’ or ‘brain fingerprinting’, has emerged as a forensic tool aimed at unlocking criminal secrets within the gray matter and opening a case when traditional investigative methods hit a wall .
Developed by CR Mukundan, a neuroscientist at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, this non-invasive technique, which harnesses electrical signals from the brain, has been used in states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat since the mid-2000s to detect brain involvement. suspect in a crime And in the baffling recent case of Saraswati Vaidya, the 36-year-old Mira Road resident whose dismembered body parts were discovered after being allegedly butchered and boiled by her 56-year-old partner, Manoj Sane, who maintained that Vaidya had poisoned herself. to herself- brain mapping could be a last resort for bewildered authorities to determine if it was murder either suicide.
So how does brain mapping help criminal investigation? “In the absence of an eyewitness, BEOS along with psychological profiling, polygraph and narcoanalysis are of great value in the scientific reconstruction of the evidence,” explains Dr. Rukmani Krishnamurthy, former director of Forensic science Laboratory (FSL), Maharashtra and president of a private forensic organization. During the trial, the defendant is fitted with a special cap equipped with 32 electrodes attached to the earlobes and various parts of the brain. The individual is then instructed to sit with eyes closed and silently listen to statements and questions called “probes” recorded on a computer. “A defendant is not required to answer questions verbally. Instead, the focus is on retrieving experiential knowledge of him related to the crime by detecting electrical activity in the brain,” adds Krishnamurthy.
Forensic psychologist Dr. Deepti Puranik describes how crime scenes are reconstructed through auditory or visual ‘probes’ such as ‘I took the knife’ or ‘I cut the body into pieces’, designed to trigger memories of the crime in the defendant’s mind. . “When the defendant recalls these events, there are fluctuations in the electrical patterns in his brain that serve as signals. Innocent individuals, lacking this memory, would not exhibit such brain patterns,” says Puranik, who had employed brain mapping in high-profile cases such as the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and the Malegaon bombing cases. “She helped corroborate different pieces of information and offered crucial information about the investigation, which was vital in compiling the evidence presented in court,” she adds.
It was in 2008 that Maharashtra witnessed the first pivotal BEOS profile which provided compelling evidence of two brutal murders and resulted in life sentences for the defendants. In the first case, Aditi Sharma, an MBA student, and her lover Pravin Khandelwal were convicted of conspiring to poison Sharma’s ex-boyfriend, Udit Bharati, with prasad laced with arsenic. In the second case, Amin Bhoi, a supari shop clerk, was found guilty of hammering to death his colleague Ramdullar Singh while the latter was sleeping.
In both cases, the BEOS evidence in the Kalina FSL indicated the defendants’ involvement in the murders and was found admissible in the sessions courts. The copy of the judgment in Sharma’s case devoted 10 pages to brain mapping by investigators who had read aloud their version of events and used first-person evidence such as ‘I bought arsenic’.
“While brain mapping does not directly uncover motives or psychological states, expert forensic psychologists can create probes targeting motives related to revenge, impulsiveness, or planning that the technique can verify,” explains Puranik.
According to the protocol, before obtaining a court order to perform brain mapping tests in a case, the voluntary written consent of the suspect in the presence of a magistrate is required. However, the idea of ’voluntary’ is ambiguous, says criminal psychologist Meghana Srivatsav. “The scientific community has repeatedly insisted on the need to obtain consent without coercion, but we don’t know if this holds true,” she says. While BEOS may sound like a mind-reading superhero with his claims of a “5% error rate”, he is not entirely infallible. “The published literature on this technique is limited and certain studies have also found that one can learn countermeasures to challenge them,” adds Srivastav.
Since its introduction two decades ago, BEOS has often been marred by controversies around ethics, individual rights, and its reliability as independent evidence.
In 2008, a committee of India’s National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) declared brain scans of criminal suspects unscientific and warned that they should not be used as evidence in a court of law. In May 2010, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court held that forcing suspects and witnesses to undergo brain mapping tests without their consent was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of their right to privacy.
Earlier this month, the SC acknowledged that psychological tools like polygraphs and brain mapping are material evidence, but cautioned that these tools alone are insufficient to determine guilt in a case. This followed a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that discharged Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, his wife Waheeda Hussain Shatta and others for the murder of Lonavla resident Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi. Despite the inclusion of psychological evaluations, including the BEOS profile, which indicated her husband’s involvement in the murder and revealed her ‘antisocial’ personality, the defendants were released.
Developed by CR Mukundan, a neuroscientist at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, this non-invasive technique, which harnesses electrical signals from the brain, has been used in states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat since the mid-2000s to detect brain involvement. suspect in a crime And in the baffling recent case of Saraswati Vaidya, the 36-year-old Mira Road resident whose dismembered body parts were discovered after being allegedly butchered and boiled by her 56-year-old partner, Manoj Sane, who maintained that Vaidya had poisoned herself. to herself- brain mapping could be a last resort for bewildered authorities to determine if it was murder either suicide.
So how does brain mapping help criminal investigation? “In the absence of an eyewitness, BEOS along with psychological profiling, polygraph and narcoanalysis are of great value in the scientific reconstruction of the evidence,” explains Dr. Rukmani Krishnamurthy, former director of Forensic science Laboratory (FSL), Maharashtra and president of a private forensic organization. During the trial, the defendant is fitted with a special cap equipped with 32 electrodes attached to the earlobes and various parts of the brain. The individual is then instructed to sit with eyes closed and silently listen to statements and questions called “probes” recorded on a computer. “A defendant is not required to answer questions verbally. Instead, the focus is on retrieving experiential knowledge of him related to the crime by detecting electrical activity in the brain,” adds Krishnamurthy.
Forensic psychologist Dr. Deepti Puranik describes how crime scenes are reconstructed through auditory or visual ‘probes’ such as ‘I took the knife’ or ‘I cut the body into pieces’, designed to trigger memories of the crime in the defendant’s mind. . “When the defendant recalls these events, there are fluctuations in the electrical patterns in his brain that serve as signals. Innocent individuals, lacking this memory, would not exhibit such brain patterns,” says Puranik, who had employed brain mapping in high-profile cases such as the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and the Malegaon bombing cases. “She helped corroborate different pieces of information and offered crucial information about the investigation, which was vital in compiling the evidence presented in court,” she adds.
It was in 2008 that Maharashtra witnessed the first pivotal BEOS profile which provided compelling evidence of two brutal murders and resulted in life sentences for the defendants. In the first case, Aditi Sharma, an MBA student, and her lover Pravin Khandelwal were convicted of conspiring to poison Sharma’s ex-boyfriend, Udit Bharati, with prasad laced with arsenic. In the second case, Amin Bhoi, a supari shop clerk, was found guilty of hammering to death his colleague Ramdullar Singh while the latter was sleeping.
In both cases, the BEOS evidence in the Kalina FSL indicated the defendants’ involvement in the murders and was found admissible in the sessions courts. The copy of the judgment in Sharma’s case devoted 10 pages to brain mapping by investigators who had read aloud their version of events and used first-person evidence such as ‘I bought arsenic’.
“While brain mapping does not directly uncover motives or psychological states, expert forensic psychologists can create probes targeting motives related to revenge, impulsiveness, or planning that the technique can verify,” explains Puranik.
According to the protocol, before obtaining a court order to perform brain mapping tests in a case, the voluntary written consent of the suspect in the presence of a magistrate is required. However, the idea of ’voluntary’ is ambiguous, says criminal psychologist Meghana Srivatsav. “The scientific community has repeatedly insisted on the need to obtain consent without coercion, but we don’t know if this holds true,” she says. While BEOS may sound like a mind-reading superhero with his claims of a “5% error rate”, he is not entirely infallible. “The published literature on this technique is limited and certain studies have also found that one can learn countermeasures to challenge them,” adds Srivastav.
Since its introduction two decades ago, BEOS has often been marred by controversies around ethics, individual rights, and its reliability as independent evidence.
In 2008, a committee of India’s National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) declared brain scans of criminal suspects unscientific and warned that they should not be used as evidence in a court of law. In May 2010, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court held that forcing suspects and witnesses to undergo brain mapping tests without their consent was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of their right to privacy.
Earlier this month, the SC acknowledged that psychological tools like polygraphs and brain mapping are material evidence, but cautioned that these tools alone are insufficient to determine guilt in a case. This followed a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that discharged Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, his wife Waheeda Hussain Shatta and others for the murder of Lonavla resident Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi. Despite the inclusion of psychological evaluations, including the BEOS profile, which indicated her husband’s involvement in the murder and revealed her ‘antisocial’ personality, the defendants were released.
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.