Editor: Jhanvi Vashisht
In the recent case of State of Bihar versus Amar Kumar, the Patna High Court overruled the judgement pronounced by the District Court wherein the District Court pronounced a death sentence to a man who was accused of raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl whose dead body was found near a temple based on the evidence that a sniffer dog entered the accused’s house.
In the present case, the accused was alleged to commit the offence of rape of a 12-year-old girl who went missing from a fair where her grandmother had accompanied her on the occasion of Nag Panchami. The accused or the appellant herein was convicted under 302, 376DB, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 4 of the POCSO, 2012. The Judge from the special court pronounced the death sentence to the accused on that very day. There were many witnesses heard from the side of the victim or the deceased but none from the appellant in this case. The grandmother’s statement was also different from what she submitted at the primary stage to what she finally said in the high court. Neither there were substantive evidence nor did the post-mortem report conclude the possibility of rape. The only reliance was on a dog. Moreover, the doctor failed to conclude the reason behind the death of the girl and the body was decomposed until it reached the doctor. Hence there was no conclusive evidence.
The lower court relied solely upon the Police sniffer dog who entered the residential premises of the accused. The investigation team relied on the story or the direction in which the police went. There were 4 pairs of footwear found near the dead body and without any witness or proof they believed that they belonged to the accused.
The Patna High Court was unsatisfied with the manner in which the investigation took place and the special court ignored the fundamental legal principles and awarded a death sentence to the accused. The bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey found it hard to understand how a District Court could pronounce a judgement relying on a sniffer dog. The major point of discussion was how could it be presumed that a sniffer dog cannot be wrong. Taking an aid from a sniffer dog is not denied but the police cannot wholly proceed in a case depending upon the dog’s action. Moreover, there have been instances when the sniffer dog went the wrong way. The Court also showed their disagreement on the documentation and especially the absence of a medical test of the accused which is a necessary element under section 53A of the Code of Civil Procedure. There were many loopholes and one of the most significant was that the person who made the seizure report was not kept as a witness nor his statements were recorded.
Henceforth it was held that sniffer dogs could be taken into consideration at the preliminary stages but not as irrefutable evidence. The High Court acquitted the accused, saying “Mere identification of a sniffer dog cannot be evidence unless a court verifies skill and veracity of the dog and pattern of his identification. Its handler’s ability also needs to be tested…” The court, however, said it did not ask police to stop seeking sniffer dogs’ help, but other aspects needed to be looked into to present it as proof.
Cases Relied upon:
· Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar versus State of Maharashtra
· Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik versus The State of Maharashtra
· Gade Lakshmi Mangraju versus Ramesh vs State of Andhra Pradesh
· Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra
This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author.