BEOS (Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling) is a scientific tool that evaluates changes in brain electrical activity linked with the presence of knowledge elicited by a probe when the suspect is not required to respond. BEOS is a system for identifying people who have been involved in a crime. Chamapdi Raman Mukundan, a neuroscientist and former professor and head of Clinical Psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuroscience in Banglore, developed the methodology.

Shri. Mukundan had some data on the brain-memory connection, which he converted into a set of eleven physiological variables. If all eleven variables on an electroencephalogram are positive, the statement given to a suspect is assumed to be true. Knowing and Remembering are two neuro cognitive processes, with Knowing referring to the cognitive process of recognition with or without familiarity and Remembering referring to the recollection of episodic and autobiographical details from a person's life.

How does it work?
The programme assesses recollection of Experiential Knowledge or autobiographical information, which comprises of awareness of internal processing or remembrance, sensory motor mental imageries connected with experience. The "Signature" of the experience refers to the electrical activity associated with remembering. The retrieval of Experiential Knowledge is the process's definition. Only if the specifically tailored probes can elicit a remembrance will the signature be present. Absence of Experiential Knowledge results in the absence of the signature.

Procedure for BEOS

1. In BEOS, conduct a pre-test interview with the suspect.
2. The suspect is well-versed in the BEOS method.
3. Affirmation of Informed Consent is acquired.
4. During the test, no questions should be asked; rather, the individual should be presented with events/scenarios, and the results should be assessed to see if the brain develops any experiential knowledge that should be disclosed.
    

Operating Mechanism
The suspect will be presented a picture or a word. It will activate brain neuron if it is well-known or familiar. Neurons will then be triggered, resulting in brainwaves (P300). Electrical potential is accumulated in the brain as a result of the creation of brainwaves. Electrodes are put on the individual's head using a mead gear. Brainwaves are measured using the scalp ERG EEG. Analog signals are generated when brainwaves are measured and amplified in an EEG amplifier. The enhanced analogue signals are analysed using a computer programme to assess whether or not the individual is guilty.

Probes
Probes are used to stimulate a subject's brain in order to elicit and caused reactions that can be related to the probe's contents. The probes' contents are linked to numerous parts of the crime under investigation and control circumstances.

Auditory and Visual Probes:
The focus of these inquiries is mostly on the subject's memories of the event and the issues surrounding it. The subjects are shown neutral and crime scene images. Each visual probe is shown for the right amount of time.

Visual data was chosen depending on:

1. Case-specific significance.
2. Correlation with the subjects' life events.
3. Events that are neither positive nor negative.

• Neutral probes are merely sematic presentations that do not refer to any experiential event and are not designed to elicit any recollection.
• Control probes are verifiable autobiographical episodes in the suspect's life that are unrelated to the occurrence under investigation.
• Target A probe:
  These probes are shown in a variety of circumstances. They're also made to show the progression of events from the beginning of the incident to the unfolding of the crime and the actions that follow it.
• Target B probes are concerned with the suspect's activities. According to his own version, which he believes may provide immunity if they can demonstrate it.
   

Legal implications and innovations
The advancement of Brain Mapping Technology has changed the causes of criminal investigation in the country, earning accolades and recognition from the judges and law enforcement authorities. Further, under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, brain mapping technology has survived a slew of judicial challenges. A court order is required for BEOS to be conducted, as well as the expressed agreement of the intended subject. The subject's informed consent is obtained twice. Once in court, when the subject is briefed on the BEOS method, and again when the subject is transported to the forensic laboratory for testing.

BEOS does not violate the restrictions of Article 20(3) [Right against self-incrimination] of the constitution, because the subject is not obligated to respond to any questions in any way. The subject is not expected to respond to the stimulus supplied by the BEOS system with "Yes" or "No" or any other response. The subject's attentiveness is required for the test to be conducted successfully. The subject has the option to be inattentive and hinder the exam here as well. The subject is under no obligation to respond to any queries.

In terms of Article 21 [Right to life and personal liberty], the BEOS is a non-invasive procedure that does not require the subject to be injected with any medication. It is a non-cruelty process in which the subject is placed comfortably in a chair and relaxed before the test begins.

Judges, lawyers, and jury members are also direct stakeholders since they must assess neuroimaging test results appropriately and in accordance with legal procedures. One of the system's assets is the accuracy of the data it provides. If the information is used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, it is critical that the information be correct and has not been tampered with, regardless of the test's outcome (recognition or no recognition).

The following are some examples of exceptions:
A test administrator who is malevolent or uneducated and either conducts the test wrongly or falsifies the results in some way. If the pictures provided to the defendant are chosen poorly or intentionally, a malicious judge or counsel could induce the individual undergoing the test to have the inappropriate reaction (for example, if the subject's favourite hat was photoshopped onto a picture of a dead body). A malicious code designed by the system's creators to cause the system to fail or perform incorrectly.

The Brain Computer Interface is a breakthrough in this sector (BCI). The use of brain signals to decode human intentions is possible with a brain computer interface. The goal of BCI is to establish direct communication between the brain and an external device, allowing users to communicate with computers using their thoughts. These neurons are triggered with energy every time we think or move a muscle. These energy patterns in the brain are recognised by a BCI.

Case Studies

• State of Maharashtra vs Aditi Sharma
  This is a one-of-a-kind case, and the only one in our country, in which the accused was sentenced to life in jail solely based on BEOS results. Pune sessions court found MBA students Aditi Sharma and Prawin Khandelwal guilty of planning to murder a fellow student. Aditi revealed the presence of experiential knowledge on probes depicting her having an affair with Udit after conducting BEOS. Aditi also had firsthand knowledge of a plot to murder Udit by poisoning him with Arsenic, as well as buying Arsenic from a shop, calling Udit, and delivering the poisoned Prasad.
   
• Chembur Case
  In the second Chembur case, Amin was accused of bashing his colleague Ramdular Singh to death in the shop where the two worked while the latter was sleeping. Amin's test resulted in a positive result. The Sewri sessions court, which found Amin guilty, also stated that his objective was to murder Singh in order to make looting the shop easier.
  
  Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Reygon D cotha
  

  Authentication No: AU124264031523-30-0821