- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Tracker Dog Evidence
Tracker Dog as Scientific Evidence
The discovery of facts with the help of a tracker dog or sniffer dog is regarded as a form of scientific evidence used during criminal investigation. Investigating agencies often employ trained dogs to trace criminals, detect objects, or connect suspects with places or articles related to the offence.
However, Indian courts have consistently maintained that such evidence has limited evidentiary value and cannot by itself form the basis of conviction.
Judicial View on Tracker Dog Evidence
In Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that criminal courts should exercise caution while relying on evidence based on sniffer dogs because of its inherent frailties and uncertainties. Although the Court did not disapprove the use of tracker dogs in criminal investigations, it emphasized that such evidence is not wholly reliable for proving guilt.
The Court recognized that sniffer dogs may assist investigating agencies in tracing suspects or collecting clues, but the behavior of animals cannot be treated as conclusive proof against an accused person.
Position in Dinesh Borthakave v State of Assam
In Dinesh Borthakave v State of Assam, the Supreme Court further clarified that the services of tracker or sniffer dogs may certainly be used during investigation, but the results obtained through such methods cannot independently establish the guilt of the accused.
The Court held that tracker dog evidence may be relevant, but it is not sufficient by itself for conviction. Such evidence must always be supported and corroborated by other reliable evidence such as eyewitness testimony, forensic material, circumstantial evidence, or documentary proof.
Evidentiary Value of Tracker Dog Evidence
Tracker dog evidence is therefore considered only corroborative in nature. It may help investigators in discovering clues or guiding the investigation in a particular direction, but courts do not treat it as substantive evidence.
The limited reliability of such evidence arises from several factors, including the possibility of error, inability to cross-examine the animal, dependence on the handler, and lack of complete scientific certainty regarding the dog’s reactions.
Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, evidence obtained through tracker or sniffer dogs may be relevant in criminal investigations, but courts treat it with caution. Judicial decisions have consistently held that such evidence cannot independently prove guilt and must be corroborated by other trustworthy evidence before it can be relied upon for conviction.
Tracker Dog as Scientific Evidence
The discovery of facts with the help of a tracker dog or sniffer dog is regarded as a form of scientific evidence used during criminal investigation. Investigating agencies often employ trained dogs to trace criminals, detect objects, or connect suspects with places or articles related to the offence.
However, Indian courts have consistently maintained that such evidence has limited evidentiary value and cannot by itself form the basis of conviction.
Judicial View on Tracker Dog Evidence
In Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that criminal courts should exercise caution while relying on evidence based on sniffer dogs because of its inherent frailties and uncertainties. Although the Court did not disapprove the use of tracker dogs in criminal investigations, it emphasized that such evidence is not wholly reliable for proving guilt.
The Court recognized that sniffer dogs may assist investigating agencies in tracing suspects or collecting clues, but the behavior of animals cannot be treated as conclusive proof against an accused person.
Position in Dinesh Borthakave v State of Assam
In Dinesh Borthakave v State of Assam, the Supreme Court further clarified that the services of tracker or sniffer dogs may certainly be used during investigation, but the results obtained through such methods cannot independently establish the guilt of the accused.
The Court held that tracker dog evidence may be relevant, but it is not sufficient by itself for conviction. Such evidence must always be supported and corroborated by other reliable evidence such as eyewitness testimony, forensic material, circumstantial evidence, or documentary proof.
Evidentiary Value of Tracker Dog Evidence
Tracker dog evidence is therefore considered only corroborative in nature. It may help investigators in discovering clues or guiding the investigation in a particular direction, but courts do not treat it as substantive evidence.
The limited reliability of such evidence arises from several factors, including the possibility of error, inability to cross-examine the animal, dependence on the handler, and lack of complete scientific certainty regarding the dog’s reactions.
Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, evidence obtained through tracker or sniffer dogs may be relevant in criminal investigations, but courts treat it with caution. Judicial decisions have consistently held that such evidence cannot independently prove guilt and must be corroborated by other trustworthy evidence before it can be relied upon for conviction.
0 Comments