Sniffer Dog Evidence in Indian Law: Admissibility and Significance
Sniffer Dog Evidence in Indian Law: Admissibility and Significance
Sniffer dogs have been employed in various criminal investigations in India for detecting narcotics, explosives, tracking persons, and identifying crime scenes. However, the legal standing of such evidence is nuanced and largely dependent on judicial discretion.
1. Legal Framework and General Principles
There is no specific statutory provision under Indian law (such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) that directly governs the admissibility of sniffer dog evidence. However, such evidence falls under the broader categories of circumstantial evidence and expert opinion, and courts analyze it under relevant sections such as:
Section 45: Opinions of experts
Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts
Section 27: Information received from the accused leading to discovery
Section 11: Facts otherwise irrelevant become relevant
2. Judicial Attitude: Key Case Law
Indian courts have generally been cautious in admitting sniffer dog evidence. Here are some landmark judgments:
a. Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra (1970)
The Bombay High Court held that dog tracking evidence is of a corroborative nature only and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
It ruled that such evidence must be supported by independent corroborative evidence to be admissible.
b. Ram Baran v. State (1975 All LJ 1135)
The Allahabad High Court expressed strong skepticism, asserting that sniffer dog tracking alone cannot form the basis of conviction.
c. Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam (2008)
The Gauhati High Court held that sniffer dog evidence, though not wholly inadmissible, is not sufficient for conviction on its own.
d. Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019)
The Supreme Court reiterated that dog tracking evidence has limited evidentiary value and should be used only for corroboration.
3. Conditions for Admissibility
For sniffer dog evidence to be admitted or considered reliable:
The dog must be trained and certified.
The handler must be an expert or someone with adequate experience.
The handler must testify in court regarding the dog's training, reliability, and the specific circumstances of the identification.
Chain of custody and absence of contamination at the scene is crucial.
The evidence must be corroborated by other independent evidence.
4. Evidentiary Value and Limitations
| Aspect | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Substantive evidence? | ❌ No — only corroborative |
| Alone sufficient for conviction? | ❌ No — requires supporting evidence |
| Reliability | ✅ Conditional — depends on training, handler testimony |
| Judicial discretion | ✅ High — courts decide on case-to-case basis |
5. International Perspective
USA & UK: Sniffer dog evidence is admissible with stringent safeguards regarding reliability and handler testimony.
Indian courts have adopted a more cautious approach due to concerns over the scientific reliability and the risk of prejudice.
6. Conclusion
While sniffer dog evidence is not inadmissible per se in Indian law, its evidentiary value is limited. Courts generally do not rely solely on such evidence for conviction. It is seen as an investigative aid rather than conclusive proof, and its admissibility depends on judicial discretion, proper procedure, and corroborative evidence.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments