In a landmark judgment reasserting the evidentiary standards required in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence, the Orissa High Court held that police dog tracking cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless corroborated by independent proof. The Court dismissed the State of Odisha’s plea for leave to appeal against the acquittal of two men in a 2003 rape and murder case of a minor girl, sharply criticizing the reliance on uncorroborated dog tracking evidence.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice B.P. Routray on March 26, 2025, in CRLLP No. 53 of 2006.
Case Background
The case arises from a tragic incident in Gangeswarpur Sasan village, Bhubaneswar, on May 1, 2003, during a yajna ceremony at a newly constructed Shiva temple. A minor girl, who was playing with other village children, went missing that night. Her dead body was found the next morning in a dried pond near the temple, bearing signs of assault.
The Lingaraj Police Station registered Case No. 76/2003 under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302, and 34 IPC. Two villagers, identified as Respondent No.1 (PKD) and Respondent No.2, were arrested and put on trial in S.T. No. 30/292 of 2003, which culminated in their acquittal by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-I, Bhubaneswar, on January 7, 2005. The State challenged this acquittal by filing the present criminal leave to appeal.
Important Legal Issues
The High Court considered the following critical legal issues:
- Whether the police dog’s trail, leading from the crime scene to Respondent No.1’s shop, could be treated as substantive and reliable evidence of guilt.
- Whether the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence—such as the “last-seen” theory, prior bad conduct, and suspicious post-incident behaviour—satisfied the legal threshold for conviction.
Key Observations and Quotes from the Court
On the use of police dog evidence, the Court delivered a clear warning against its overreliance:
“…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 dog is a mere ‘tracking instrument’ rather than a witness, with the handler reporting the dog’s behaviour. The police dog evidence, in the instant case, is unreliable in the absence of corroboration.”
Referring to Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) AIR 283], the Court reinforced the principle:
“There are three objections which are usually advanced against the reception of such evidence… First, since the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath… the dog’s human companion must go into the box and report the dog’s evidence, and this is clearly hearsay.”
On the last-seen theory, the Court found it to be a weak link in the absence of supporting facts:
The key eyewitness (P.W.2) had “turned hostile” and “admitted that due to the darkness, he could not see much.” The Court emphasized that the time gap between when the girl was last seen and when her body was discovered “left ample room for the involvement of other persons.”
On allegations of prior sexual misconduct by Respondent No.1 (including statements by minor witness P.W.8), the Court cautioned:
“Mere rumours or village gossip cannot form the basis for conviction without concrete evidence.”
On the accused’s suspicious behaviour, the Bench noted that while he was seen distracted or dazed the next morning:
“Human reactions to distress vary. In the absence of any direct evidence linking the behaviour to the crime, such conduct cannot satisfy the legal threshold of guilt.”
Decision of the Court
After thoroughly reviewing the entire record and the prosecution’s arguments, the High Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented:
- Failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing conclusively to the guilt of the accused;
- Was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable testimony, and lack of forensic or corroborative proof.
The Bench concluded:
“The circumstances presented are neither cogent individually nor do they form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the respondents. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Criminal Leave Petition on merits at the admission stage, thereby upholding the trial court’s acquittal of both accused.
Case Details
- Case Title: State of Odisha v. PKD & Anr.
- Case Number: CRLLP No. 53 of 2006 (arising from S.T. No. 30/292 of 2003)
- Bench: Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice B.P. Routray
- Advocates:
- For the State: Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
- For Respondent No.1: Ms. A. Mishra
- For Respondent No.2: Mr. P. Jena
- For the State: Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
