In the said case, this Court relying decision
in Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar (supra) case held:
“17. We are of the view that criminal courts need not bother
much about the evidence based on sniffer dogs due to the
inherent frailties adumbrated above, although we cannot
disapprove the investigating agency employing such sniffer
dogs for helping the investigation to track down criminals.”
33.In Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam, (2008) 5 SCC 697,
while the same question was considered, referring to Gade Lakshmi
Mangaraju (supra) case this Court held “the law in this behalf,
therefore, is settled that while the services of a sniffer dog may be
taken for the purpose of investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as
evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused.”
34.In the present case, the services of a sniffer dog was taken for
investigation. The said dog traced the accused and he was formally
arrested in the evening of the next day.
The Investigating Officer,
Ashok Kumar Yadav (PW-10) corroborated the evidence of Abdul Lais
Khan (PW-4) to the effect that ‘Raja’ sniffer dog after picking up scent
from the place of occurrence tracked down the house of the accused.
What is relevant to note is that the accused has not been convicted on
the ground that the sniffer dog tracked down the house of the accused
and barked at him. The evidence of dog tracking only shows how the
accused was arrested.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2006
LALIT KUMAR YADAV @ KURI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Citation; 2014 CRLJ 2717 SC
Dated;APRIL 25, 2014.
