Orissa High Court: Police Dog Evidence, In Absence Of Proper Procedural Safeguards & Corroboration, Can’t Be Relied Upon To Prove Guilt

The Court upheld the acquittal of two people in connection with a 2003 case involving the alleged rape and murder of a minor girl. The police dog was used in the investigation by being given a scent, which led from the crime scene. However, the Court stated that the prosecution did not present any evidence of the dog’s training, skill, or past performance to establish its reliability.

A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash explained that “since the dog cannot testify in court, its handler must provide evidence regarding the dog’s behaviour. This introduces a layer of hearsay, as the handler is merely interpreting the dog’s reactions rather than providing direct evidence. The dog is a mere “tracking instrument” rather than a witness, with the handler reporting the dog’s behaviour. The police dog evidence, in the instant case, is unreliable in the absence of corroboration. It cannot form the basis for implicating Respondent No.1, as the investigation did not meet the necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the dog’s actions.”

Additional Government Advocate S.B. Mohanty appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate A. Mishra represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The victim, a minor girl, was reported missing after playing with other children at a ‘Yajna’. Her body was discovered the following morning in a dried pond with injuries indicating rape and murder, following which an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302 and 34 of the IPC, prompting the commencement of investigation.

The prosecution's case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence. Key points included the ‘last-seen’ theory, alleging the Respondents were the last individuals seen with the deceased, and the use of a police dog to track a scent from the crime scene to one of the Respondent's cabin.

Court’s Observations

The High Court noted that the prosecution relied heavily on the police dog’s trail leading to the Respondent’s shop and the nearby tubewell.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra (1970) was referred to by the Court, wherein it was held, “There are three objections which are usually advanced against the reception of such evidence. First, since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath, and consequently submit himself to crossexamination, the dogs human companion must go into the box and report the dogs evidence, and this is clearly hearsay.”

“In the instant case, while assessing the police dog evidence, it is observed that the investigation lacked critical elements. The prosecution did not present evidence of the dog’s training, skill, or past performance to establish its reliability. No forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, bloodstains, or incriminating materials, was recovered from the locations identified by the dog. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the conditions under which the dog conducted the tracking were controlled or that there were no other scent trails that could have confused the animal,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “The police dog evidence, in the absence of proper procedural safeguards and corroboration, cannot be relied upon to prove guilt…In view of the above, and considering the prosecution has failed to establish a cogent and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the Respondents to the crime, under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302, and 34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Leave Petition.

Cause Title: State of Odisha v. Pratap Kr. Das & Anr. (CRLLP No. 53 of 2006)

Appearance:

Appellant: Additional Government Advocate S.B. Mohanty

Respondents: Advocates A. Mishra and P. Jena

Click here to read/download the Judgment