Supreme Court: Blood-Stained Weapon Alone Not Enough for Murder Conviction

lakshmi180592
Jun 27
2 min read

SC Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case from Rajasthan

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, which challenged the acquittal of a murder accused. The Court observed that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon—even if it matches the victim’s blood group—is not sufficient to convict someone of murder.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Rajasthan High Court's ruling, delivered on May 15, 2015, which had set aside the earlier conviction and life sentence given by the trial court.

What Was the Case About?

The case involved the alleged murder of a man named Chotu Lal during the night of March 1–2, 2007. Initially, the FIR was filed against unknown persons. Later, the respondent (accused) was implicated based on circumstantial evidence and suspicion.

Key Evidence Presented by Prosecution:

Motive: Accused allegedly had an "evil eye" on the victim’s wife.
Weapon Recovery: A blood-stained weapon was recovered.
FSL Report: Confirmed the blood on the weapon matched the deceased’s blood group (B+ve).

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹100 on December 10, 2008.

High Court's View: Evidence Not Strong Enough:

The Rajasthan High Court later acquitted the accused, stating that:

The prosecution had failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances.
The evidence was not enough to support a conviction based purely on circumstantial grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees with High Court:

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. While acknowledging that the High Court may have missed the FSL report, the apex court ruled that:

“Even if the FSL report is considered, it only shows the weapon had blood matching the victim's group. That alone is not enough to prove murder.”

The Court cited its earlier ruling in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481, which clearly stated that recovery of a blood-stained weapon with matching blood type does not establish guilt without other supporting evidence.

Weak Motive and No Strong Evidence:

The Supreme Court also found the alleged motive vague and unconvincing. It stated that in order to convict in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain must point only to the guilt of the accused.

“Unless the evidence clearly rules out any possibility of innocence, a conviction cannot be sustained,” the Court emphasized.

Final Verdict:

The Supreme Court concluded:

There was no strong or clinching evidence against the accused.
The only possible view from the available evidence was that taken by the High Court: innocence of the accused.
Hence, the appeal was dismissed.