‘Sniffer dog evidence not ground for conviction’

NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

The Times of India 18 March2008 P. 9 Delhi

Human emotions and a canine’s ability to trace the culprit cannot be the grounds for courts to fasten guilt on an accused, ruled the Supreme Court while acquitting an Assam engineer, who was convicted of murdering his wife and adopted daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. What distressed the apex court was that the engineer had to remain in jail for four years due to the folly of the trial court and the high court, which convicted him for the double murder relying on such insignificant circumstantial evidence.

The Assam police had slapped murder charges against Dinesh Borthakur, who claimed to have discovered the bodies on coming back home from office on May 25, 1999. Though doctors opined that the girl was strangulated, they were not sure whether the engineer’s wife Mala died due to consumption of poison or by strangulation, which could also be due to suicide.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, held Dinesh guilty of the double murder on the ground that the sniffer dog stayed near him and that his conduct was not natural as he did not exhibit any emotions or sadness despite the fact that a shocking incident had occurred. The Gauhati HC had dismissed his appeal against conviction.

Dealing with the case, an apex court Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari said: “While the services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused.” Quoting a 1969 SC judgment, the Bench said: “Since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath and consequently submit itself to cross-examination, the dog’s human companion must go into the box and report the dog’s evidence and this clearly is hearsay. Second, there is a feeling that in criminal cases, the life and liberty of a human being should not depend on canine inference.”

Examining in detail the lack of expression of emotions by Dinesh after the discovery of the bodies, the Bench said no hard and fast rule, having universal application with regard to the reaction of a person in a given circumstance, could be laid down. “One person may lose equilibrium and balance of mind, but another may remain a silent spectator till he is able to reconcile himself and then react in his own way,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the Bench. “Thus, merely because Dinesh did not cry or weep on witnessing the bodies of his wife and daughter cannot be made the basis for forming his guilt,” he said.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in