‘Dogs do speak, but only to those who know how to listen – Orhan Pamuk’
Preliminary
Investigative authorities frequently employ the services of tracker dogs, raising questions as to the reliability and admissibility surrounding this category of evidence. Although being admissible, the conventional orthodox view limited its evidentiary value, propounding that canine scent detection carries little weight. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gade Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2001[i] enumerated thus, ‘Investigative agencies have profitably used the canine species uncanny ability to smell to find the transgressors.
When trained, dogs can detect scents from the scene of any object and follow the paths taken by the criminals to get to their hiding places. Developing nations have made extensive use of sniffer dogs, evidently, their employability has witnessed a significant upward trend in India as well. Even though these dogs might be helpful to the detectives, can the court use their movements and assess it as evidence in criminal cases? Tracker dogs, patrol dogs, and sniffer dogs are the three main categories of police dogs.
According to recent trends, hounds from a specific pedigree that are chosen for their unique traits such as skill, alertness, and intelligence, and who are housed in specialized kennels and receive specialized training can serve as a valuable source of information for crime detection, which in turn can assist detectives in making significant progress in their investigations. Not every dog is deemed suitable for serving in such capacities.
Such evidence is already being treated as admissible by English courts. Courts of Canada and Scotland have granted admissibility to evidences garnered through sniffer dogs, while Courts of the United States have varying stances based on specific policies of each state. A four-fold critique concerning the reception of evidence is put forth, stating that the sniffer dog based evidence has inherent flaws.
Firstly, the standard procedure used in criminal cases cannot be used to verify that the canine movements are correct, when being cross-examined. The second is that human freedom and life shouldn’t be forced to rely on the sensibilities of animals. Third, it is impossible to completely rule out the possibility that a dog could misjudge the scent or confuse the track; in fact, instances of this have occurred frequently. Fourth, there is still no definitive scientific statement regarding the accuracy of canine tracking.
Police dogs’ specific abilities to track and identify criminals are poorly understood and highly uncertain. Sniffer dogs perform these tasks due to their innate instincts as well as the training they have received. In Pandian Kanappan Nadar vs State Of Maharashtra 1993[ii], the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in order to identify the potential defendant, the original scent should be maintained.
The possibility of scents being lost casts serious doubt on the admissibility of evidence, such as that of a crowded sphere, making preservation even more challenging. The training abilities and unique characteristics of police dogs are now widely acknowledged to be of such a high caliber that in situations like the detection of explosives, drugs, etc., judicial notice must be taken.
They are deemed better and more efficient than the most advanced tools. In this context, it is important to recognize that the dog’s unique abilities, traits, and skills are characteristics that require careful consideration in order to find a criminal. Courts would be more than justified in accepting such evidence when the police rely on it, as long as it passes the complete testimony test.
Admissibility & Essentials
In Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar vs State Of Maharashtra 1969[iii], enunciated three objections against the acknowledgement of such evidences. Initially, it is evident that the dog is unable to enter the box and provide his testimony under oath, and thus cannot be subjected to cross-examination; therefore, the dog’s human companion must enter the box and relay the dog’s testimony, which is undeniably hearsay. Secondly, there is a belief that in criminal cases, a person’s life and freedom ought not to rely on the interpretations made by dogs.
Lastly, it is proposed that even if such evidence meets the strict criteria for admissibility under the rules, it ought to be excluded due to its potential to significantly influence the jury, disproportionately to its actual value. It was contended in that instance that the evidence from the tracker dog could be compared to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts discussing chemical reactions, blood tests, and the behavior of bacilli.
The comparison seems flawed, as the actions of chemicals, blood cells, and bacteria lack any aspect of conscious intention or purposeful decision. However, dogs are smart creatures with various thought processes akin to those of humans, and wherever there are thought processes, there lies the potential for mistakes, deceit, and even self-deception. For these reasons, we believe that given the current level of scientific understanding, evidence of dog tracking, even if acceptable, generally carries little significance.
Though no water-tight compartment has been formulated concerning admissibility and essential ingredients, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Magbul Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra 1992[iv], elucidated that Evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious accusations, must unquestionably satisfy the dual requirements of outright reliability and certainty.
The indisputable nature of a tracker dog greatly benefits it and lends this kind of evidence a special kind of legitimacy. In terms of the margin of error, prior experiences show that a tracking dog’s special skills outperform all other detection techniques, including cutting-edge technology. It is now commonly known that using a trained tracker-dog makes it nearly impossible to evade discernment in drug detection when all other human creativity and devices have been circumvented.
This explains why this method is considered the most reliable and infallible. In cases of robbery, murder, and other similar crimes where the area isn’t overly populated and the smell is fresh, the experience has been similar. Since then, the position has been very clear and has changed considerably. The courts have stressed that the evidences of Sniffer dogs must pass the reliability and scrutiny tests, in consonance to the admissibility of other categories of evidences. However, the following recommendations ought to be taken into account:
It is essential to maintain a dependable and thorough record detailing the precise method of the tracking conducted, and consequently, in this nation, a Panchnama concerning the dog tracking evidence must be clear and comprehensive. It must be adequately demonstrated and must be backed by the handler’s evidence.
It is crucial that there are no inconsistencies between the version documented in the Panchnama and the testimony of the handler presented in Court.
The handler’s testimony must stand up to the scrutiny of cross-examination on its own.
The handler must present material to the Court, including details about the training given to the dog, its previous performance, achievements, reliability, and so on, backed by documents, if available.
Recent Precedence & Trends
A series of events must be so obvious that they only indicate the accused’s guilt and not their innocence in order to convict them based on circumstantial evidence. In Dinesh Borthakur vs State Of Assam 2008[v], the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the determination of the guilt of the accused must not rely on assumption. The abilities of sniffer dogs used for investigations cannot be used as proof of guilt because, although they can be used for investigative purposes, they cannot be relied upon in judicial proceedings.
Despite the fact that sniffer dogs can be used for investigative purposes, the law currently in effect states that their abilities cannot be used as proof of a suspect’s guilt. Scientists are well aware that dogs have sophisticated, trustworthy instincts and a considerable amount of intelligence. Because of their exceptionally high skill levels, some dog breeds and varieties are used exclusively for tracking and hunting.
Dog-tracking evidence must be deemed exceptionally high-quality, in addition to being admissible, if the dog falls into one of these categories and it can be demonstrated to the court that it has received specialized training for detection. Building on previous rulings, State of Bihar vs Amar Kumar, 2003[vi] affirmed, ‘in accordance to animal science, dogs can be highly effective if trained correctly’.
Their excellent sense of smell aide in locating the offender, which significantly enhances the benefits of canine employability than relying on olfactory senses of humans. However, unless the court considers the dependability of the sniffer dogs, its past performance and interpretation skills of the handler must be ascertained so as to deem it reliable otherwise, it ought not be considered a crime that the offender has committed.
Similarly, the division bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash in State of Odisha vs PKD and Anr, 2005[vii] ruled that the handler must provide evidence regarding the conduct of the canine because the dog cannot testify in court. This raises the possibility of hearsay because the handler is merely extrapolating the dog’s reactions rather than providing concrete evidence.
The handler describes the dog’s behavior, and the dog merely serves as a ‘tracking tool’ rather than a witness. In this instance, the evidences of the police dog is unreliable, without further proof. The prosecution was unable to produce proof of the dog’s dependability based on its training, skills, or prior performance.
The locations the dog pointed to did not contain any forensic evidence, such as bloodstains, fingerprints, or other items that could be used as evidence. The prosecution was unable to prove that the environment in which the dog performed the tracking was regulated or that there were no other scent paths that might have misled the animal.
As noted in Surinder Pal Jain vs Delhi Administration 1993[viii], it was stated that dogs could potentially foster a misplaced suspicion that the appellant was guilty, hence their Lordships excluded that piece of evidence from deliberation. Criminal courts should not be overly concerned with evidence derived from sniffer dogs because of the inherent weaknesses mentioned above; however, we cannot disapprove of the investigative agency using such sniffer dogs to assist in tracking down criminals.
Conclusion
Sniffer Dogs’ evidence, which is considered expert testimony under section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, is, in conclusion, not scientifically valid. People who handle sniffer dogs interpret their behavior. For the most part, it is subjective and therefore hearsay rather than scientific proof.
Sniffer dogs are permitted as a tool for investigation, and the handler is now responsible for explaining the behavior of the dog. It simply elucidates the progression of inquiry. Despite being relevant and acceptable, sniffer dog evidence should be backed up by other substantial evidence that is included in the record. A conviction cannot be based only on the inferences drawn from canine abilities in the absence of corroboration due to the inherent flaws in establishing the defendant’s guilt.
[i] 2001 INSC 287
[ii] 1993CRILJ3883
[iii] 1970 AIR 283
[iv] 1993CRILJ2808
[v] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2205
[vi] MANU/BH/1671/2023
[vii] 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
[viii] 1993 SCR (2) 226
Author: Sakshi Kumari is a 2nd-year student at Chanakya National Law University.
