CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has observed that police dog is not a witness but a mere “tracking instrument” with the handler reporting its behaviour, owing to which its evidence cannot be relied upon to prove guilt in the absence of proper procedural safeguards and corroboration.
The division bench of Justices BP Routray and Chittaranjan Dash said, “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 ruling was given recently in a judgment which dismissed the petition filed by the state government challenging the acquittal of the accused in a rape and murder case by the Fast Track Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar on January 7, 2005.
The rape and murder of a minor girl had occurred under Lingaraj police station limits on May 1, 2003. For investigation, the services of a scientific officer and a police dog was requisitioned. The involvement of the accused was inferred as the police dog consistently tracked a scent trail from the location where the body of the minor girl was found, to his shop and nearby tubewell.
In the order on March 26, the bench said, “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 that the circumstances surrounding the accused failed to satisfy the rigorous standards required for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence, making acquittal inevitable.
“The judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused does not warrant interference and is liable to be upheld as the prosecution has failed to establish a cogent and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt,” the bench ruled.