Majority of a Constitution Bench in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74 held, it would be far-fetched to conclude from mere presence of blood-stained earth that that earth was stained with human blood and that human blood was of victims. Also see, Two-Judge Benches in Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480; Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 21; Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398; Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210. It appears important to prove, blood is human blood and it belongs to same blood group of victim.
Two-Judge Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507 held, Serologist might fail to detect origin of blood. Will it then mean, blood would be of some other origin? Criminal Court should not prowl for imaginative doubts. Unless doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed. Teja Ram was unable to find a ratio in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi indicating, in all cases of failure of detecting origin of blood, circumstance arising from recovery of weapon would stand relegated to disutility. Teja Ram was followed by Two-Judge Benches in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205 and Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127.
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266 took note of almost all previous decisions starting from Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 and including Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, Teja Ram, Gura Singh, John Pandian v. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129 and Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205. B.S. Chauhan and V. Gopala Gowda JJ held, it is not possible to accept, in absence of a report regarding origin of blood, there can’t be conviction.
Three-Judge Bench in Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 did mention, we cannot lose sight, it would be a disadvantageous position if R. Shaji or Gura Singh or Teja Ram is applied in each and every case; non-confirmation of blood-group or origin of blood may assume importance.
For clarity, it isn’t incorrect to state as has been in Madhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2021, we are conscious, there is a divergence of views.
You must be logged in to post a comment.