Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. In support of his contention that delay in recording statements of witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 583.

(k) Suppression of report of dog squad:

37. It was also argued that though a dog squad was called on the spot, but its report was not produced before the trial Court. In order to satisfy the Court that dog squad was summoned, Mr. Choudhary took the Court through the relevant part of the statement of witnesses, namely, Sunil Kumar(P.W.18) and Kistura Ram(P.W.20) and then, towards the statement of Investigating Officer - Prahlad Ram(P.W.21) and pointed out that Investigating Officer has clearly stated that the report of dog squad was not received.

38. Learned senior counsel argued that had the appellant been the culprit, then the trained dogs would definitely have identified him, as he was admittedly present when the dog squad had arrived. He contended that the fact that dogs failed to pick on appellant's scent suggesting his involvement in the crime, proves the appellant's innocence. He emphatically argued that the Investigating Officer did not intentionally produce the report of dog squad as a part of charge-sheet because it was 'negative'. He added that non-furnishing, rather withholding the report shows that the investigating officer did not conduct fair investigation.

116. It is not in dispute that the investigating officer had called the dog squad at the scene, its report was however not produced for the reasons best known to him. Withholding of report of dog squad on the one hand raises a doubt about the fairness of the investigation and on the other hand lends support to the hypothesis that if the appellant was involved in the murder of the deceased, the trained dogs ought to have identified him. Such thought gives us another reason to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.

(vii) most of the statements and evidence furnished with the charge-sheet were collected after the appellant's arrest;

(viii) the presence of three scratch marks on the boundary wall of deceased's home, which is plastered with mud is suggestive of three or more than one person fleeing from the scene;

(ix) the absence of any blood mark on the boundary wall remains unexplained, given that the front side of the shirt and pants of the appellant were stained with blood;

(x) though the appellant was present when the dog squad was called, but the trained dogs did not identify the appellant; and