Case: State Of U.P Vs. Ram Balak

According to prosecution, murder and rape was committed by the respondents on 17-11-1992 at about 7.00 A.M. in the morning when Kumari Suneeta, the deceased victim aged about 14 years had gone to ease herself in the nearby open field in village Jamal Nagar Police Station Safipur District Unnao. When on 17-11-1992 at about 7.00 A.M. Kumari Suneeta had gone to attend the call of nature in the nearby open field, both the accused followed her and after catching hold of her committed rape upon her and thereafter killed her by strangulation. They thereafter concealed the dead body of Kumari Suneeta by throwing it in the nearby Patawar. When she did not return back to her home, the family members of Kumari Suneeta started searching for her and ultimately at about 2.00 p.m. the dead body of the Kumari Suneeta was found in the Patawar. After recovery of the dead body of Kumari Suneeta, Radhey Lal (PW.1), brother of the deceased lodged a report about the incident at Police Station Safipur District Unnao at 3.45 P.M. on the same day. The distance of Police Station is 6 miles from the place of the incident. Sheo Harsh Tewari (C.w.2), Sub Inspector was present at the Police Station at the time when the report was lodged, therefore, he immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and reached there in the evening. He prepared inquest report at about 4.30 P.M. and other relevant papers Ext. Ka. 6 to Ka. 10 and sent the dead body to Mortuary for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer thereafter prepared Site-plan Ext. Ka.14 and recovered bali, Lutia, Chappal, Chaddhi etc. from the place of the incident. The investigating Officer also recovered Salwar and Frock which were found to be wrapped on the neck of the deceased. It is further said that thereafter the Investigating Officer called the Dog Squad and on the request of the Investigating Officer, Dog Squad reached there on 18-11-1992 at about 12.45 p.m. It is said that the dogs after smelling the foot-print of the accused from the place of the incident reached the house of Shiv Balak. On 2.12.1992, the Investigating Officer arrested Ram Balak and recovered one lutia of Shiv Balak from the place of the incident on the pointing out of accused Ram Balak. Shiv Balak subsequently surrendered in Court. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 18-11-1992 by Dr. Satya Prakash, Medical Officer District Hospital, Unnao. Ram Balak accused after the incident visited the house of Iqbal Ahmad (CW-1) and confessed his guilt. After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons.Since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the version which rested on circumstantial evidence.The learned Trial judge after scrutinizing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he convicted and sentenced the respondents as mentioned above.The respondents feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, filed the Criminal Appeal before the High Court challenging their conviction and sentence as aforesaid.The stand before the High Court was that there is no evidence at all against the present respondents and the learned Court below committed an error in holding that the prosecution by means of circumstantial evidence has proved the guilt of the respondents beyond doubt.In the instant case there is no eye witness account. The conviction of the respondents is based only on circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Judge while convicting the respondents relied upon five circumstances, namely, (i) the motive behind the crime was teasing of the deceased by the accused persons and thereafter they were scolded by the deceased, (ii) the accused persons were seen on the date and time of the incident near the place of the incident which led to their involvement, (iii) the police Dog Squad proved the guilt of the accused persons, (iv) the witnesses had no reason to implicate the accused persons falsely and (v) there is no missing link in the prosecution story.The High Court held that the circumstances do not make a complete chain of circumstances. There was no evidence to show that the accused were last seen in the company of the deceased. Merely because they were seen near the place of incidence, that cannot be a ground to show their involvement. The High Court noted that though there was some reference to the alleged extra judicial confession before CW-1 by the accused Ram Bali, the said confessional statement was not confronted to the accused while the statement of accused Ram Balak was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The High Court also found that the evidence of this witness was not believable. Accordingly, the High Court directed acquittal.

Court's reasoning:
There have been considerable uncertainty in the minds of the Courts as to the reliability of dogs in identifying criminals and much conflict of opinion on the question of the admissibility of their actions in evidence. A survey of the cases however, reveals that most Courts in which the question of the admissibility of evidence of trailing by blood-hounds has been presented take the position that upon a proper foundation being laid by proof that the dogs were qualified to trail human beings, and that the circumstances surrounding the trailer were such as to make it probable that the person trailed was the guilty party, such evidence is admissible and may be permitted to go to the jury for what it is worth as one of the circumstances which may tend to connect the defendant with the Crime. Pare 378, Am. Juris. 2nd edn. Vol. 29, p. 429.There are three objections which are usually advanced against the reception of such evidence. First, since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath, and consequently submit himself to cross-examination, the dogs human companion must go into the box and report the dogs evidence, and this is clearly hearsay. Secondly, there is a feeling that in criminal cases the life and liberty of a human being should not be dependent on canine inferences. And, thirdly, it is suggested that even if such evidence is strictly admissible under the rules of evidence it should be excluded because it is likely to have a dramatic impact on the jury out of proportion to its observed men stealing wire by the side of a railway line. They ran away when he approached them. Shortly afterwards the police got them on a nearby road. About an hour and half later the police tracker dog was taken to the base of the telegraph pole and when he had made a few preliminary sniffs he set off and tracked continuously until he stopped in evident perplexity at the spot where the accused had been put into the police car. At the trial it appeared that other evidence against the accused that they had been stealing the wire was inconclusive and that the evidence of the behaviour of the tracker dog was crucial to sustain the conviction. In these circumstances the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that tracking and reported the dogs reactions was properly admitted. The Court did not regard its evidence as a species of hearsay but instead the dog was described as "a tracking instrument" and the handler was regarded as reporting the movements of the instrument, in the same way that a constable in traffic case might have reported on the behaviour of his speedometer. It was argued in that case that the tracker dogs 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 corpuscles and bacilli contains no element of conscious volition or deliberate choice. But Dogs are intelligent animals with many thought processes 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."