22 Oct 2022 5:45 AM GMT
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, affirmed lower court's decision finding chain of circumstances conclusively proving the guilt of accused-Appellant. The bench comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and N.S.Shekhawat observed that inconclusivity of serologist's opinion about blood stains on the murder weapon and clothes...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, affirmed lower court's decision finding chain of circumstances conclusively proving the guilt of accused-Appellant.
The bench comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and N.S.Shekhawat observed that inconclusivity of serologist's opinion about blood stains on the murder weapon and clothes of accused pales insignificant when links in the chain of incriminatory circumstances stand established by the prosecution.
It observed that the FSL report does not disclose any conclusive opinion about the blood carried on the relevant items belonging to the blood group of the deceased. However, it opined that the above inconclusivity of opinion by the serologist concerned does not erode the efficacy of the proven incriminatory links in the chain of incriminatory circumstances.
"The reason becomes comprised in the factum, that only if the investigating officer concerned, had collected the FTM card, revealing the blood group of the deceased, rather from the latter's family members, thereupon alone, the serologist concerned, would become facilitated to make an apposite best comparison(s) or matchings, otherwise not, and, if yet an opinion favourable to the accused hence arose, thereupon may be a finding of acquittal was renderable. However, since the investigating officer concerned, has not done so, resultantly, the inconclusivity of opinion, if any, by the serologist concerned, about the blood stains thereons', rather not relating to the blood group of the deceased, rather not foisting any firm conclusion that hence any exculpatory finding, is required, to be made qua the convict. Contrarily the making of opinion (supra), becomes completely irrelevant."
The court was dealing with an appeal against order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Facts relevant to the case are that the appellant is alleged to have committed the murder of one Munna on account of prior animosity.
The court noted that the primary link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the offence is comprised in the deposition of deceased' brother (PW-3) who in his examination-in-chief deposed that he witnessed the incident where the deceased demanded money for the eggs that the appellant consumed from his rehri and the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and another incident of accused holding a bottle of liquor and a knife while the deceased was following him after which he was found dead.
The court said that since PW-3 last saw the deceased in the company of accused, almost close to the discovering of the dead body of deceased, this proves the above primary incriminatory link.
Since PW-3 had not witnesses the accused attacking the deceased, as such, the Court turned to the the post mortem report which revealed that the cause of demise was multiple injuries to internal organs, possibly inflicted by a knife. The weapon was also recovered from a concealed spot at accused' house following a disclosure statement. This statement nor the recovery was disputed by the appellant. Hence, the Court held that the confession is admissible in evidence.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Anil Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 273
Click Here To Read/Download Order