## Facts

- Aditi Sharma was engaged to marry Udit Bharati.
- Sharma later fell in love with another man, Pravin, and left Bharati to live with Pravin.
- The State of Maharashtra alleged that Sharma and Pravin conspired to murder Bharati by poisoning him with arsenic.
- Bharati died, and police charged Sharma and Pravin with Bharati’s murder.
- During the investigation, Sharma agreed to undergo a brain electrical oscillation signature (BEOS) test, described as a psychological-credibility test.
- For the BEOS test, Sharma’s head was connected in a noninvasive manner to 32 electrodes.
- A forensic scientist conducted an electro-encephalogram (EEG) while Sharma listened to a tape-recorded voice describing the alleged murder in first-person, event-focused statements.
- When Sharma heard incriminating statements about how the murder was committed, the EEG output was described as displaying bright colors indicating activation of certain memory centers in her brain.
- The prosecution presented the BEOS/EEG results through the forensic scientist to the Sessions Court judge, who considered that material along with other evidence offered by the State in deciding Sharma’s guilt.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a murder prosecution based on an alleged arsenic-poisoning conspiracy, the court could consider BEOS/EEG test results offered through a forensic scientist as evidence that the accused had memory of crime events.
2. Whether the totality of the prosecution’s evidence proved Sharma’s guilt for Bharati’s murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Sessions Court received the prosecution’s BEOS/EEG evidence through the testimony of the forensic scientist who administered the test.
- The court treated the BEOS/EEG material as part of the evidentiary record presented by the State and weighed it together with the other proof offered at trial in determining Sharma’s guilt.
- The court’s disposition was a trial-level determination of criminal liability arising from the State’s charge that Sharma (and, as alleged, Pravin) murdered Bharati by arsenic poisoning.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court, sitting as the factfinder, may weigh scientific opinion testimony presented by a qualified forensic witness when deciding disputed facts in a criminal case.
- Evidence from an EEG-based BEOS procedure may be offered by the prosecution to argue that an accused’s brain activity reflects recognition or memory of described events, subject to the court’s assessment of reliability and probative value.
- In a murder prosecution alleging poisoning and conspiracy, the factfinder may consider multiple strands of proof together, rather than isolating any single scientific procedure as the entire basis for guilt.
- A defendant’s agreement to undergo a forensic psychological-credibility procedure may bear on whether the resulting material is received and considered, though it does not eliminate the court’s duty to evaluate weight and fairness.

## Conclusion

In *State of Maharashtra v. Sharma*, the Pune Sessions Court addressed a prosecution theory that Aditi Sharma and Pravin conspired to murder Udit Bharati by arsenic poisoning and heard BEOS/EEG “brain mapping” testimony from a forensic scientist describing brain responses said to indicate memory of incriminating events; the court considered that evidence alongside the rest of the State’s proof in reaching its trial-level determination of Sharma’s guilt.


State of Maharashtra v. Sharma, No. 508/07 (Court of Sessions, June 12, 2008)