BABU MAGBUL SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very unusual situation has arisen in this appeal. During the investigation, assistance of tracker-dog Kumar was made use of by the police and the bag and clothes of the accused were recovered with the assistance of this tracker dog, who also led the police to the house of the accused. The admissibility of this evidence and, more importantly, the evidentiary value of dog-tracking evidence has been seriously questioned and, therefore, requires to be examined and the issues decided. Investigating agencies often use the services of tracker-dogs and the question, therefore, arises as to how reliable is this class of evidence. The orthodox view was that though it is admissible, it is not of much utility and consequently, that it did not ordinarily have much weight. There has been considerable development of research and thinking on the subject and the modern trend is that such evidence is of an extremely high calibre.

(2.) UNDOUBTEDLY, evidence in criminal cases, and in particular ones where the charges are serious, must pass the dual tests of absolute reliability and infallibility. That a tracker dog cannot be influenced is something strongly in its favour and what lends this class of evidence a special blend of acceptability. On the question of margin of error, experience has shown that the special skills of a tracker dog outclass all other forms of detection, even sophisticated gadgetery. It is now universally acknowledged that in detecting drugs, where every other form of human ingenuity and gadgets are capable of being eluded, that it is virtually impossible to avoid detection when a trained tracker-dog is used, explaining why this mode is found to be the most reliable and fool-proof. Similar has been the experience in cases of robbery, murder and the like where the scent is fresh and the area not too crowded. Statistics have shown that in many cases dogs have been unsuccessful in detection due to limiting factors, but that wherever they have tracked down an object or a culprit that the dog was never wrong. Such evidence will, therefore, have to be categorised as being of the highest order and reliability.

(3.) THE present appeal presents a set of very unusual facts. The appellant, original accused No. 1, stands convicted of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on the evening of 29-1-1985, he along with original accused No. 2 had assaulted police Head Constable Babulal Sonavane at Village Indore. In this assault, the P. H. C. had sustained a number of injuries and he was required to be taken to hospital for treatment. The police commenced the investigation and arrested the appellant along with accused No. 2 on the next morning. According to the prosecution, certain items of clothing which consist of a muffler and a khaki coat which the present appellant is alleged to have been wearing, as also his bag, were recovered by the police with the assistance of a tracker dog. It is also alleged that at the time of the assault on Sonavane, the accused had come riding a brownish-red coloured horse and that in the course of the investigation, witnesses have admitted that the accused had borrowed the horse in question from them on that evening. Furthermore, the accused is sought to be connected with the offence on the strength of a muffler which he had borrowed from P. W. 14 Gautam and on which a blood stain of O group was found. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default R. I. for three months. The present appeal is directed against this conviction and sentence.