GADE LAKSHMI MANGRAJU @ RAMESH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 10-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GADE LAKSHMI MANGRAJU@ RAMESH 
v. 
STATE OF ANDI-IRA PRADESH 
JULYI0,2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial : 
Sniffer Dog-Tracking down of criminals by-Evidentiary value of-
C Held : Trained dogs can pick up scent from the scene of crime and reach the 
hideouts of culprits-However, the possibility of error.on its part or its master 
cannot be ruled out-Hence, criminal courts need not bother much about 
evidence based on sniffer dogs-But investigating agency may employ such 
sniffer dogs to track down criminals. 
D 
Fingerprint-Presence of-At the scene of crime-Evidentiary value of 
-Held: Is a positive evidence of presence of the culprit at the scene of crime 
-However, its absence is not a guarantee of absence of the person concerned. 
Circumstantial evidence-Evaluation of-Held : One circumstance by 
E itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused-It is the cumulative 
result of all circumstances that mailers. Jewellery or ornaments belonging to 
the deceased female-Identification of-By a male kin-Evidentiary value 
of-Held : Female kin of deceased female 11·ould be in a better position to 
identffy herjewel/e1)' or ornaments-However, if such ornaments are identified 
by a male kin in the presence of female kin such identification is admissible 
F in evidence. 
G 
The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 
302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to 
undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and 
sentence. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, PW-2 went on a pilgrimage leaving his 
mother under the care of the appellant. But on his return his mother was 
found murdered and the ornaments that she was usually wearing were missing. 
A sniffer dog, which was deployed by the police to track down the hideout of 
1-I 
the culprits, went up to the house of the appellant but he was not there then. 
830 
,
·~· 
) 
G.L. M/\NGRA.IU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
831 
Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and some of the missing ornaments A 
of the deceased were recovered from him. The sons of the deceased identified 
her ornaments in the presence of her daughter. The prosecution sought to 
prove the case with the help of circumstantial evidence. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the evidence pertaining 
to the sniffer dog was so fragile that no adverse inference could be drawn · B 
against the appellant on the strength of the said evidence; that no fingerprint 
of the appellant was collected from the scene of crime which was enough to 
exclude his presence there; and that identification of the ornaments of the 
deceased was a very fragile evidence since they were identified by her sons. 
Dismissing the appeal, tl!e Court 
HELD: 1.1. The uncanny smelling power of canine species has been 
profitably tapped by investigating agencies to track the culprits. Trained dogs 
c 
can pick tip scent from the scene of any object and trace out the routes through 
which the culprits would have gone to reach their hideouts. Developing D 
countries have utilized such sniffer dogs in a large measure. In India also 
the utilization of such tracker dogs is on the increase. Though such dogs 
may ~e useful to the in,yestigating officers, their movements cannot be of any 
help to the court in evaluating the evidence in criminal cases. 1836-D-EJ 
"-
1.2. A four-fold criticism is advanced against the reception of such E 
evidence. First is, it is not possible to test the correctness of the canine 
· movements through the normal method available in criminal cases, i.e. in 
cross-examination. Second is that the life and liberty of human beings should 
not be made to depend on animal sensibilities. Third is that the possibility of 
a dog misjudging the smell or mistaking the track cannot be ruled out, or 
many a time such mistakes have happened. Fourth is that even today the science F 
has not finally prono~;ced about the accuracy of canine trafking.1836-F-GJ _ 
2.1. The possibility of error on the part of the dog or its master is the 
first weakness of the evidence based on tracker dogs. There is also the 
possibility of misunderstanding between the dog arid its master. The possibility G 
of a misrepresentation or a wrong inference from the behaviour of the dog 
~ould not be ruled out. Th'e last, but not the least, is the factthat from a 
scientifi~-point of vie"'., there ~"tittle knowledge and much.uncertain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.