Dog is merely a tracking instrument, not a witness; its reactions are hearsay without proper safeguards: Orissa High Court Declines to Rely on Police Dog Trail in Minor Girl’s Murder Case

Police Dog Evidence Cannot Be Sole Basis of Conviction Without Corroboration - Orissa High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of two accused persons charged with the abduction, rape, and murder of a minor girl. Significantly, the Court gave detailed findings on the limited value of police dog evidence in criminal trials. The Bench comprising Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash reiterated that police dog evidence, without strict procedural compliance and corroboration, is unreliable and insufficient to establish guilt.
“Dog is a Mere Tracking Instrument, Handler's Report is Hearsay” — Orissa High Court
While rejecting the police's heavy reliance on the dog tracking evidence, the Court strongly emphasized: “Since the dog cannot testify in Court, its handler’s testimony amounts to hearsay. Without corroboration, the dog’s reactions cannot form the sole basis for conviction.”
Relying on the settled principles in Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 283, the Court cautioned against placing undue reliance on dog tracking evidence, noting its tendency to have a disproportionate psychological effect on fact-finders despite its speculative nature.
The prosecution case largely revolved around the fact that a police dog, after sniffing the scene of the crime, allegedly tracked to the shop of Respondent No.1, circled it, and then moved towards a nearby tubewell. The investigating officer and village witnesses treated this as a crucial circumstance linking the accused to the crime.
However, the Court rejected this link, holding that: “The investigation lacked critical elements. The prosecution did not present evidence of the dog's training, skill, or past performance to establish its reliability.”
Further, the Court noted that no forensic or scientific corroboration was presented to supplement the dog’s trail.
The Bench made a significant observation: “The dog is a mere ‘tracking instrument’ and the handler is only interpreting its behaviour. This kind of evidence, without proper corroboration, cannot establish a conclusive link between the accused and the crime.”
The Court also reminded that dog evidence could only support a case if it fits into an already established and complete chain of circumstantial evidence, which was absent in the present case.
The Court Added: “No forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, bloodstains, or incriminating materials, was recovered from the locations identified by the dog.”

Thus, the reliance on the police dog evidence without any supporting material was held to be speculative.
The Court categorically ruled: “In the instant case, the police dog evidence is unreliable in the absence of corroboration. It cannot form the basis for implicating Respondent No.1, as the investigation did not meet the necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the dog’s actions.”
The judgment serves as a clear and binding reaffirmation of the limited role of police dog tracking in criminal trials. The Orissa High Court reinforced that: “Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis other than guilt. In the absence of scientific corroboration, dog evidence cannot complete such a chain.”
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the acquittal.

Date of Decision: 26 March 2025