Abolish Death Penalty India: Bihar - Patna High Court sets aside death sentence based on sniffer dog evidence

Saturday, December 23, 2023

Bihar - Patna High Court sets aside death sentence based on sniffer dog evidence

Summary

The Patna High Court recently set aside the death penalty of a man, Amar Kumar, because the conviction was based solely on sniffer dog evidence. The court did not issue a death sentence to a dog.

In a December 2023 ruling, a division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey acquitted the man who had been convicted by a trial court in a case involving the alleged rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl.

Key points from the High Court's judgment:

Sniffer dog evidence is not sufficient for conviction: The court ruled that evidence gathered by a sniffer dog cannot be considered substantive evidence to establish guilt. At best, it is an investigative tool.
Lack of corroborating evidence: The prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the fact that a sniffer dog, after smelling the deceased girl's body, entered the accused man's house.
Procedural lapses: The High Court found serious lapses in the trial, including the fact that the post-mortem report did not mention anything about rape or molestation, which contradicted the prosecution's charge.
Need for verification: The judges observed that for sniffer dog evidence to have any value, the skill and veracity of the dog, as well as the handler's ability, must be examined in court.

Image only for representative purpose: Source: WWF

The High Court emphasized that strong suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof and that the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete to warrant a conviction, especially in a case involving the death penalty. The accused was ordered to be released immediately.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/patna-hc-sets-aside-death-sentence-based-on-sniffer-dog-evidence/articleshow/106239958.cms

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies? Reena Mary George