Cuttack: Police dog evidence cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of a person in the absence of proper procedural safeguards and corroboration, the Orissa high court has held, while refusing to interfere against a trial court’s acquittal of an accused in a rape and murder case that took place some 20 years back.
The two-judge bench of Justice B P Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said the dog is a mere ‘tracking instrument’ and not a witness, with the handler reporting the dog’s behaviour.
“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 bench observed.
The case pertains to the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Bhubaneswar on May 1, 2003. Her body was found in the bushes near a temple. The investigating officer had requisitioned the services of a scientific officer and a police dog. The involvement of the accused was inferred as the police dog picked up a scent from the location where the body was found and tracked it to the man’s shop and nearby tubewell.
The fast-track court of ad hoc additional sessions judge, Bhubaneswar, had acquitted the man on Jan 7, 2005. The govt challenged it in 2006.
Dismissing the petition in its March 26 judgement, the bench stated, “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 bench further observed, “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.”
It further said that circumstances surrounding the accused failed to satisfy the rigorous standards required for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence, making acquittal inevitable.
Considering the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish a cogent and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused does not warrant interference and is liable to be upheld, the bench ruled.