The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the principle that a police dog’s indication does not constitute reliable evidence in court. The decision comes in the context of a two-decade-old case in which two individuals were accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl in 2003. The Court upheld the acquittal of the accused by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.
Why Police Dog Evidence Is Considered Hearsay
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash rejected the prosecution’s reliance on sniffer dog evidence. The court observed:
"Since the dog cannot testify in court, its handler must provide evidence regarding the dog's behavior. 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 behavior. The police dog evidence, in the instant case, is unreliable in the absence of corroboration."
This ruling aligns with previous Supreme Court judgments that question the credibility of police dog evidence unless substantiated by additional forensic proof.
Case Background: A Tragic Night in 2003
On May 1, 2003, the village of Gangeswarpur Sasan was celebrating the Pratistha ceremony of a newly constructed Shiva temple near the river embankment. That night, several children, including the minor victim, were playing near the temple. As the night progressed, all the children returned home except the deceased girl.
A frantic search was conducted throughout the night, but the child was not found. The next morning, her body was discovered in a dried pond near the temple, bearing multiple injuries. Following this discovery, an FIR was filed under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Read Also:- Muslim Woman Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Even After Divorce: Patna High Court
After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. However, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted them. The State appealed the decision.
Court’s Analysis: Why The Prosecution’s Case Failed
1. Last Seen Theory Rejected
The prosecution relied heavily on the 'last seen theory,' arguing that a minor witness saw the victim in the company of the accused shortly before her disappearance. However, the Court found the testimony unreliable.
"P.W.2 initially stated that during the pratistha ceremony, at around 9:00 p.m., he saw Respondent No.1 calling the deceased towards Tikarpada village while she was standing on the river embankment. However, during cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that due to the darkness, he could not see much and eventually went home. Importantly, P.W.2 later turned hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution's case."
Additionally, the Court noted that the time gap between the alleged sighting and the recovery of the body was too significant, allowing the possibility of involvement by someone else.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Centre Two Weeks to Respond to PIL on Public Awareness of POCSO Act
2. Suspicious Behavior Due to Intoxication?
The prosecution highlighted the first accused’s suspicious behavior, stating that while the entire village was mourning, he remained inattentive in his shop and did not participate in the search efforts. However, the Court dismissed this as a basis for criminal liability.
"Mere non-participation in the search for a missing person does not automatically lead to the inference of guilt unless it is coupled with other incriminating circumstances forming a complete chain of evidence."
The Court noted that the accused was a known user of ganja (cannabis) and attributed his odd behavior to intoxication rather than guilt.
"Without any substantive evidence, interpreting these actions as an indication of guilt is speculative and unwarranted."
3. Past Rape Allegations Not Considered Relevant
The prosecution also attempted to introduce past allegations of sexual assault by the accused. However, the Court refused to consider them, emphasizing that there was no formal criminal record of those incidents.
"The notion that a serious crime such as rape could be resolved informally within the village, without any formal action, seriously questions its credibility. Mere rumors or village gossip cannot form the basis for conviction without concrete evidence."
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Massive Reshuffle: 582 Judges Transferred Across Uttar Pradesh
4. Why the Sniffer Dog’s Evidence Was Rejected
A sniffer dog was used during the investigation, and it allegedly traced the scent from the crime scene to the first accused’s shop. The prosecution argued that this was strong evidence of his involvement. However, the Court ruled otherwise.
"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."
5. Second Accused’s Mere Association Not Enough for Conviction
The Court held that merely being associated with the main accused does not establish guilt.
"Since no independent evidence linked him to the crime, he has rightly been acquitted of the charges."
Given the lack of direct evidence, the reliance on unreliable testimony, and the unsubstantiated police dog evidence, the Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. PKD & Anr.
Case No: CRLLP No. 53 of 2006
Date of Judgment: March 26, 2025
Counsel for the Appellant/State: Mr. S. B. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. A. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr. P. Jena, Advocate for Respondent No.2
