Supreme Court must decide whether dogs can sniff up evidence

Doggone it, can there be a more indefatigable detective than the shiny black — occasionally pink-stippled — canine proboscis? There is no better tail — to use police slang — than a dog, and no one who nose a suspicious smell better either.

And unlike humans, dogs are not known to hound without reason, so alleging malfeasance in canine investigations is difficult. Yet, the judgment of the Supreme Court is awaited on whether sniffer dogs’ findings can be admitted as evidence, after a lower court sentenced a man to death for raping and killing a 10-year-old girl five years ago based on canine olfactics, but the Karnataka High Court acquitted him.

While many of their untrained brethren may be prone to barking up the wrong tree, trained canine cops are obviously of a different calibre, just like their police handlers are not the same as lay humans. Unfortunately, as a dog cannot testify (for obvious reasons), its handler’s description of its actions could presumably be called “hearsay”. But cases abound here and abroad in which paw patrols have found trails in seemingly dead-end cases, for which they deserve at least a metaphorical pat on their heads. This week, a sleuth hound has led the Delhi Police to another suspected murderer. The apex court cannot surely ignore their role in sniffing out crucial leads!