In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court upheld the acquittal of two individuals accused of the 2003 rape and murder of a minor girl, emphasizing the unreliability of evidence derived from police dog tracking without corroboration. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, concurred with the earlier decision of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, which found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case originated on the night of May 1, 2003, during the pratistha ceremony of a newly constructed Shiva temple near the river embankment in Gangeswarpur Sasan village. Children, including the deceased minor girl, were playing near the temple. While other children returned home as the night progressed, the young girl did not. A search ensued, and her body was discovered the following morning in a dried pond amidst bushes near the temple, bearing visible injuries on her cheek, neck, private parts, and other areas. An FIR was subsequently lodged, leading to charges under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution's case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' theory and the testimony of a police dog handler. The 'last seen' theory posits that if an individual is last seen with the victim before their death, it raises a presumption of involvement. However, the court noted inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the presence of the accused near the temple during the ceremony. Some witnesses claimed to have seen the accused at the temple, while others did not corroborate this assertion. The court emphasized that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to establish a complete chain of events leading unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative failed to meet this standard.
A pivotal aspect of the prosecution's evidence was the involvement of a police sniffer dog in tracing the scent from the crime scene to the shop of one of the accused. The dog allegedly led its handler to the accused's shop, suggesting a connection to the crime. However, the court raised critical concerns about the admissibility and reliability of such evidence. It observed that since a dog cannot testify in court, any interpretation of its behavior by the handler constitutes hearsay and requires corroboration. The handler's testimony is essentially an interpretation of the dog's reactions rather than direct evidence. The court concluded that, in the absence of corroborative evidence, the police dog's tracking results were unreliable and could not substantiate the prosecution's claims.
The court also addressed the broader implications of relying on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. It underscored the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive link between the accused and the crime. The court highlighted that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof in a court of law. The acquittal by the trial court was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and the High Court found no compelling reason to overturn that decision.
This ruling has significant implications for the use of police dog tracking evidence in criminal investigations. While sniffer dogs can be valuable tools in law enforcement, their findings must be corroborated by other evidence to be admissible in court. The court's emphasis on the necessity of corroboration serves as a caution against over-reliance on such evidence without additional supporting facts. This decision aligns with the broader legal principle that all evidence must be scrutinized for reliability and relevance before being deemed admissible.
Furthermore, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on solid and incontrovertible evidence. By discarding unreliable evidence and emphasizing the need for a complete chain of circumstances, the court has reiterated the importance of due process and the protection of individual liberties. This approach not only safeguards the rights of the accused but also upholds the integrity of the judicial system.
The case also highlights the challenges inherent in prosecuting crimes based solely on circumstantial evidence. While such evidence can be compelling, it requires meticulous collection and presentation to establish a conclusive narrative. The gaps and inconsistencies in this case underscore the necessity for thorough investigations and the corroboration of all pieces of evidence. This serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the critical importance of adhering to rigorous standards in evidence collection and case building.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal of the accused in the 2003 minor rape and murder case underscores the paramount importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal trials. The ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding the admissibility of police dog tracking evidence and reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding the principles of justice and due process. It highlights the necessity for law enforcement to ensure that all evidence presented in court meets the highest standards of reliability and credibility, thereby upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.