Is Mere Recovery of Blood-Stained Weapon Enough to Prove Murder?

New Delhi, June 27 (NationPress) In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused, emphasizing that the mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the blood group of the deceased is insufficient to establish a murder charge.

A bench consisting of Justices Sandeep Mehta and P.B. Varale addressed a criminal appeal from the Rajasthan government, contesting the Rajasthan High Court's decision that acquitted the respondent-accused of murder.

The contested order overturned a December 2008 judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, who had convicted the respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 100, with an additional 3 months of simple imprisonment for non-payment.

The respondent was accused of murdering Chotu Lal on the night of March 1-2, 2007. Initially, an FIR was lodged against unknown perpetrators, and later, the respondent was implicated based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including a motive, alleging the respondent harbored inappropriate intentions towards the deceased's wife, the recovery of the murder weapon, and an FSL report indicating that the blood type on the weapon matched that of the deceased (B +ve).

Contradicting the trial court's findings, the Rajasthan High Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to prove the accused's guilt, subsequently acquitting him.

Agreeing with the Rajasthan HC's perspective, the Justice Mehta-led bench noted: “The incriminating circumstances put forth by the prosecution, such as motive and the recovery of the blood-stained weapon, do not create a comprehensive chain of evidence to substantiate the charges against the accused.”

“The High Court may have overlooked the FSL report, highlighted by the appellant's counsel. However, we believe that even considering the FSL report, aside from the matching blood group of the recovered weapon (B +ve), it does not significantly impact the case,” they added.

The apex court, referencing a prior judgment, asserted that simply recovering a blood-stained weapon with the victim's blood type is inadequate for proving murder charges.

It dismissed the motive theory, stating that the evidence surrounding it appeared vague and inconsistent.

The Justice Mehta-led bench reiterated that established legal principles dictate that in appeals against acquittal, intervention is warranted only when the evidence overwhelmingly indicates the accused's guilt while excluding innocence.

Concluding the state government's appeal, the Supreme Court stated: “In this case, we are convinced that the prosecution did not present convincing evidence to substantiate the charges. The only reasonable conclusion aligns with the High Court's ruling of the accused's innocence.”