Case: Gade Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

identify criminals. Police dogs engage in these actions by virtue of instincts and also by the training imparted to them. 14. We will now refer to two decisions of this Court in which the evidence relating to sniffer dogs movement have been tested. 15. In Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 283 , a three- Judge Bench of this Court declined to express any concluded opinion or to lay down any general rule with regard to tracker dog’s evidence or its admissibility against the accused, as it was not necessary to do so on the fact situation. However, Their Lordships made the following observations on the usefulness or otherwise of such evidence : “It was argued that the tracker dog’s evidence could be likened to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts describing chemical reactions, blood tests and the actions of bacilli. The comparison does not, however, appear to be sound because the behaviour of chemicals, blood corpuscle and bacilli contains no element of conscious volition or deliberate choice. But dogs are intelligent animals with many thought process similar to the thought processes of human beings and wherever you have thought processes there is always the risk of error, deception and even self-deception. For these reasons we are of the opinion that in the present state of scientific knowledge evidence of dog tracking, even, if admissible, is not ordinarily of much weight”. 16. In Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 681, a two-Judge Bench expressed the opinion that “the pointing out by the dogs could as well lead to a misguided suspicion that the appellant had committed the crime, so save Their Lordships sidelined that item of evidence from consideration”. 17. We are of the view that Criminal Courts need not bother much about the evidence based on sniffer dogs due to the inherent frailties adumbrated above, although we cannot disapprove the Investigating Agency employing such sniffer dogs for helping the investigation to track down criminals.18. Investigating exercises can afford to make attempts or forays with the help of canine faculties but judicial exercise can ill-afford them.19. Exclusion of that circumstance would not affect strength or sturdiness of the chain found through the other circumstances which have been established by the prosecution. Dealing with the fingerprints collected from the almirah at the place of occurrence, learned Counsel for the appellant contended, first, that prosecution did not prove that the fingerprint used by PW 7 to compare the finger impression from the almirah was that of A-2 Golla Bujji. In our view the appellant cannot dispute that fact as A-2 Golla Bujji himself did not challenge it when a formal evidence was tendered by the prosecution on that score. 20. Learned Counsel alternatively contended that even if the involvement of A-2 is treated as proved that is not sufficient to inveigle the appellant into the dragnet. He said that the very fact that no fingerprint of the appellant was collected from the scene is enough to exclude his presence from the scene at the time of occurrence. 21. Presence of a fingerprint at the scene of occurrence is a positive evidence. But the absence of a fingerprint is not enough to foreclose the presence of the persons concerned at the scene. If during perpetration of the crime the fingerprint of the culprit could possibly be remitted at the scene it is equally a possibility that such a remnant would not be remitted at all. Hence absence of finger impression is not guarantee of absence of the person concerned at the scene. 22. Learned Counsel contended next that the inability of the prosecution to indicate the time of murder can go to the benefit of the appellant because the appellant alone was once found in the house whereas he was found only at the restaurant in the company of A-2. According to the Counsel if A-2’s finger impressions on the almirah is of any use the possibility of A-2 committing the murder all alone cannot be ruled out. 23. We cannot approve of the said contention as a safe method for appreciating a case based on circumstantial evidence. One circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter. Hence, we are not inclined to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it.24. Learned Counsel lastly contended that identification of ornaments as those of the deceased is a very fragile evidence. The witnesses who identified the ornaments as those belonging to the deceased were PW 1 and PW 2 who are the sons of the deceased. We agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that a female kin of the deceased female would have been in a better position than a male kin to identify the jewellery or ornaments worn by a woman. But we make a note of the fact that when a Test Identification Parade was conducted to identify the ornaments the daughter of the deceased was also called in. There is no case for the prosecution or the defence that she would have failed to identify such ornaments as those of her mother. It is difficult for us to believe that PW 1 and PW 2 the sons would have contradicted their sister while identify the ornaments during the Test Identification Parade. Hence non-examination of the daughter of the deceased need not be taken as a serious flaw which could vitally affect the prosecution evidence regarding the identification of the ornaments.25. We do not find any infirmity as to the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court and the High Court. We hold the view that the circumstances enumerated above, even barring the evidence pertaining to the sniffer dog, are quite enough to form the completed chain pointing unerringly to the active involvement of the appellant in the murder of the deceased. 26.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. We are of the view that Criminal Courts need not bother much about the evidence based on sniffer dogs due to the inherent frailties adumbrated above, although we cannot disapprove the Investigating Agency employing such sniffer dogs for helping the investigation to track down criminals.18. Investigating exercises can afford to make attempts or forays with the help of canine faculties but judicial exercise can ill-afford them.19. Exclusion of that circumstance would not affect strength or sturdiness of the chain found through the other circumstances which have been established by the prosecution. Dealing with the fingerprints collected from the almirah at the place of occurrence, learned Counsel for the appellant contended, first, that prosecution did not prove that the fingerprint used by PW 7 to compare the finger impression from the almirah was that of A-2 Golla Bujji. In our view the appellant cannot dispute that fact as A-2 Golla Bujji himself did not challenge it when a formal evidence was tendered by the prosecution on that score.We cannot approve of the said contention as a safe method for appreciating a case based on circumstantial evidence. One circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter. Hence, we are not inclined to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it.24. Learned Counsel lastly contended that identification of ornaments as those of the deceased is a very fragile evidence. The witnesses who identified the ornaments as those belonging to the deceased were PW 1 and PW 2 who are the sons of the deceased. We agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that a female kin of the deceased female would have been in a better position than a male kin to identify the jewellery or ornaments worn by a woman. But we make a note of the fact that when a Test Identification Parade was conducted to identify the ornaments the daughter of the deceased was also called in. There is no case for the prosecution or the defence that she would have failed to identify such ornaments as those of her mother. It is difficult for us to believe that PW 1 and PW 2 the sons would have contradicted their sister while identify the ornaments during the Test Identification Parade. Hence non-examination of the daughter of the deceased need not be taken as a serious flaw which could vitally affect the prosecution evidence regarding the identification of the ornaments.25. We do not find any infirmity as to the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court and the High Court.