Sniffer Dog Evidence Can't Be Relied Upon Without Handler's Testimony & Tracking Panchnama: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of 4

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that there must be no discrepancy between the version recorded in the Panchnama and the handler's evidence deposed before the Court.

With these observations, the High Court set aside the life imprisonment sentences of 4 men [Bhanwar Singh, Beniram, Om Prakash, and Kaptan Singh] who were convicted by an Agra trial court in 2020 for a murder dating back to 1998.

The bench noted that there was no panchnama, no report on the sniffer dog's movements, and the handler was never examined as a witness.

Therefore, the Court held that the sniffer-dog trail claim (that the dog went from the dead body to the appellants' houses) cannot be relied upon as evidence against the appellants.

The case in brief

Briefly put, the case concerned the murder of one Sukhpal alias Munna, who went missing on the night of October 14, 1998, after leaving to deliver milk at a dairy.

During the course of the investigation, two versions came out regarding his death. One version was put forth by his brother Harbhan Singh (PW1/Informant), who claimed that he and his family members found the dead body of the deceased in a field with gunshots and multiple knife wounds.

He alleged that they saw 3 men [Shivraj Singh, Mangal Singh, and Harpal Singh] fleeing the scene in the torchlight.

The second version was put forth by the residents of the deceased's village, who moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Agra, asserting that the 3 named accused had been "falsely implicated" on account of old enmity.

They claimed that the deceased was, in the villagers' words, "a man of loose character" who had illicit relations with a woman and a girl from a neighbouring village.

It was further stated that after the murder, the dog squad reached the room of one Phool Singh, from which it was apparent that on the night of the incident, the deceased was present in that room.

Thus, it was alleged that Phool Singh and Badan Singh might have killed the deceased over his illicit relations.

The case was ultimately transferred to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which completely rejected the first theory proposed by the deceased's brother.

Instead of pursuing the villagers' initial suspects, the CBCID filed charge-sheets against the 4 appellants, alleging that they murdered Sukhpal over rumours regarding his character and alleged illicit relations with 2 local women associated with the appellants.

While the trial court eventually separated the trial of the first 3 accused and fully acquitted them in January 2014, it proceeded with the CBCID's story against the present appellants and finally convicted them to life imprisonment in January 2020.

All four accused moved the High Court, challenging their convictions, primarily contending that they had been implicated solely on suspicion and doubt, which were not proved against them.

It was their further case that no person can be convicted of any offence merely on the basis of rumours prevailing in the village or on the basis of doubt and suspicion.

High Court's observations

Evaluating the evidence, the High Court remarked at the outset that the prosecution was fundamentally confused and uncertain about its own case and had no clear idea about the accused persons against whom it is prosecuting the case and adducing evidence

It noted that the key prosecution witnesses who testified against the appellants admitted during cross-examination that they had never witnessed the crime or the alleged illicit relations with their own eyes. They were merely repeating what they heard from the crowd or village gossip.

The Court further stressed that evidence and statements that are wholly based on doubt, suspicion, and rumours cannot be treated as evidence under the settled principles of law.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, wherein it was held that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof.

Importantly, the prosecution had relied heavily on the testimony of witnesses who stated that a police sniffer dog, after smelling the deceased's clothes, tracked a path directly to the houses of the appellants.

However, perusing the record, as well as the statements of the PWs, the bench found that there was no report or document on record to establish that the sniffer dogs had, in fact, reached the appellants' houses.

Laying down the exact ratio decidendi on this issue, the High Court held:

"In our opinion, there must be a reliable and complete record of the exact manner in which tracking was done in the Panchnama. The dog-tracking evidence will have to be clear and complete, properly proved and supported by the handler's evidence. There must be no discrepancy between the version as recorded in the Panchnama and the evidence of the handler as deposed before the Court. The handler's evidence will have to pass the test of cross-examination independently".

Applying this standard, the Court noted that there was no official report regarding the movements of the sniffer dogs, and that even the handler was never examined by the prosecution; therefore, the evidence of the sniffer dogs cannot be relied upon against the appellants.

The bench relied upon the Supreme Court's 2001 judgment in Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh v. State of AP, wherein inherent frailties of canine instincts were pointed out and it was stated that Criminal courts need not bother much about such evidence based on sniffer dogs.

Against this backdrop, the High Court concluded that the trial court had seriously misread and misappreciated the evidence by acting on legally inadmissible material and vague conjectures, and held the conviction to be completely unsustainable.

The Division Bench allowed both criminal appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

Counsel for Appellant(s): Ajay Dubey, Arvind Kumar Singh, Harish Kumar Shukla, Kuldeep Singh Chahar, Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, Vikrant Pandey

Counsel for Respondent(s): Devi Prasad Tripathi, G.A., Manish Kumar Pandey