GUWAHATI: The Orissa High Court recently ruled that evidence from a police sniffer dog is unreliable unless supported by corroborative proof. In its ruling, the court stated that a dog’s reactions cannot be directly admitted in court, and that its handler’s interpretation amounts to hearsay.
ALSO READ: Amended Waqf Bill Set To Be Tabled In Lok Sabha On April 2 Amid Political Controversy
A division bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that since a dog cannot testify, its handler’s statements about its behaviour introduce an element of insubstantiality. The court also cited an earlier decision from the Supreme Court, which stated that sniffer dog evidence lacks independent credibility unless supported by forensic findings.
In this case, the prosecution failed to present proof of the dog's training, reliability, or past performance, nor was any forensic evidence found at the locations identified by the animal.
The ruling came while upholding the acquittal of two men accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl in 2003, when she went missing during a religious ceremony in Gangeswarpur Sasan village. Her body was found the next morning in a dried pond near a temple, bearing multiple injuries.
The police initially charged two men under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302, and 34 of the IPC, but a Bhubaneswar court acquitted them, citing a lack of evidence. The State appealed the verdict.
Apart from the sniffer dog evidence, the prosecution also relied on a minor boy's testimony, claiming he saw the victim with one of the accused before she disappeared. However, the witness later turned hostile, and the court found his statements inconsistent.
Additionally, the prosecution cited the accused’s alleged suspicious behaviour after the incident. The court ruled that non-participation in a search or erratic behaviour, possibly due to intoxication, did not amount to guilt.
Therefore, the High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, reiterating that circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain of events beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution failed to do.
