Deliberating
on this issue in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2324
OF 2014 Prabhu Dayal Vs State
of Rajasthan, decided on 4-7-18, Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that -
“The reports of the Forensic Science
Laboratory as well as those of the Ballistic Experts have been perused by us.
The Forensic Science Laboratory report discloses that the samples collected
from the scene of the offence had bloodstains of human origin. However, since
the bloodstains were disintegrated by the time the bloodstains were examined by
the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood group could not be determined. For
the same, the accused cannot be unpunished, more particularly when the
bloodstains were found of human origin.
In State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram,
(1999) 3 SCC 507, thisCourt concluded that even when the origin of the blood
cannot be determined, it does not necessarily prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.
In that case, the murder weapons had been recovered with blood on them, and the
origin of the blood on one of the weapons could not be determined. Therein, the
Court held as follows:
Failure of the serologist to detect
the origin of the blood due to disintegration of the serum in the meanwhile
does not mean that the blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood
at all.
Sometimes it happens, either because
the stain is too insufficient or due to haematological changes and plasmatic
coagulation that a serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood.
Will it then mean that the blood would be of some other origin? Such guesswork
that blood on the other axe would have been animal blood is unrealistic and
far-fetched in the broad spectrum of this case. The effort of the criminal court should not be to prowl for
imaginative doubts. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially
conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed
by the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment