Blood of Human Origin III

Two-Judges in Kansa Behra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480 observed, “few small blood-stains on clothes of a person may even be of his own blood.” Do remember one Raghav, who had earlier been convicted of murdering his First Wife and Son, based on circumstantial evidence. Dead bodies were/are still missing. Relevant Serologist could not determine origin of blood, on plasters and earth, due to dis-integration. Raghav’s shirt, recovered from a Dry Cleaner, had blood-stains too. It was not proved to be of human origin. In fact, when Raghav gave his shirt for washing it was not blood-stained, Dry Cleaner deposed. Raghav “must consider himself lucky” because blood-stains are sometimes “faint and invisible by ordinary light”. Five-Judges in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74, divided 4-1, acquitted Raghav. Understandably, an act of finding blood and linking it to murder isn’t simple.

It is true however, few small blood-stains on fabric or earth, of an indeterminate nature, cannot be equated with blood on a recovered weapon – a recovery assisted by those Accused. In a double-murder episode in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507, Two-Judges considered, failure of a Serologist, to detect origin of blood, does not mean blood stuck on a recovered axe could not have been human blood; to say, it could be animal blood is “unrealistic and far-fetched”. This meets acceptance of Two-Judges in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127 and in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205. Accused must explain, as remarked by Two-Judges in John Pandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129, how did blood arrive on recovered weapon at all?  

It seems clear, non-confirmation of origin of blood may not be detrimental to confirmation of conviction, depending upon entire fact-scenario. A recovery made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by Accused is significant. It is impossible to state, in absence of a report regarding origin of blood, Accused cannot be convicted. [Two Judges in R Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266].

Nonetheless, Two-Judges in Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 found credibility of evidence, relating to recovery, ‘dented’ when blood-stains, though human, could not be linked with blood of Deceased. We find a rhyme from Two-Judges in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 21 and from Two-Judges in Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 354 who analyzed, “Prosecution has not proved, clothes which were allegedly seized by Police… were stained with blood group ‘O’ of Deceased… and on articles which were seized by Investigating Officer from place of occurrence… these circumstances are not proved… to hold A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty.”

Thus, it also seems clear, as recognized by Three-Judges in Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781, non-confirmation of blood-group or origin of blood may assume importance, for example, in cases where Accused pleads fabrication of evidence for wrongful implication of commission of crime.

Hon’ble Judges Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian in Madhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 4031 scrutinized, “investigation in this case, instead of proceeding in pursuit of truth, had proceeded towards burying truth.” Nothing on record exhibited, blood-stains present in weapons, matched with blood of Deceased. A ‘divergence’ was noted, quoting Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, Kansa Behra, Surinder Singh, Sattatiya, Teja Ram, Prabhu Dayal, Gura Singh, R Shaji, John Pandian and Balwan Singh.

Divergence? Perhaps, no “fixed formula”; non-confirmation of origin of blood may or may not be detrimental to confirmation of conviction. Balwan in Balwan Singh was a Former Panachayat Chairman. Supreme Court described, whole story of Prosecution to be ‘artificial’ and ‘concocted’; ‘shaky’ and ‘suspicious’. If investigation was not tainted, some reliance on recovery could have been placed had Prosecution at least proved blood was of human origin. There was even a lack of positive material indicating, blood-stain was of human origin, let alone of same blood group as of Accused or Deceased. Senior Advocate, Sanjay Hegde successfully argued for release of Balwan. In contrast, in John Pandian a pathetic story of a triangle of love”, while a question of sufficient evidence to connect John Pandian with conspiracy to eliminate one Vivekanandan was answered in negative, conviction of Accused No. 9, one Kumar, was confirmed. Kumar led to a cremation ground and took out a blood-stained aruval from a thorny bush. Supreme Court solved, nobody can ‘simply’ produce a human blood-stained aruval from a thorny bush.  

That’s it.


Learned Amicus Curiae submitted, there had been no evidence of matching of blood allegedly found.

Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead us to infer, Deceased was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by same weapon-same person. Evidence of PW1 remains unimpeachable and has been believed by Two Courts.

Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Suresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2013] decided on 25.02.2022.