Mere Recovery Of Weapon With Victim's Blood Group Not Enough For Murder Conviction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal of a murder accused, observing that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the victim's blood group is not enough for a murder conviction.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the High Court's judgment dated May 15, 2015, which had set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondent.

“However, in our view, even if the FSL report is taken into account, then also, other than the fact that the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused tested positive for the same blood group as that of the deceased (B +ve), nothing much turns on the said report. This Court in the case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder”, the Court held.

The trial court had convicted the respondent on December 10, 2008, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100.

The case pertained to the murder of one Chotu Lal, which occurred on the intervening night of March 1 and 2, 2007. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. The respondent was later implicated based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the alleged motive that the respondent had an evil eye on the deceased's wife, as well as the recovery of a weapon and an FSL report indicating that the blood group on the weapon matched the deceased's blood group (B+ve).

In appeal, the Rajasthan High Court, held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances necessary to convict the accused in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence and acquitted the respondent. Thus, the prosecution approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view. It noted that the incriminating circumstances cited by the prosecution, motive and recovery of a blood-stained weapon, were insufficient, even when taken together, to form a complete chain of evidence.

The Court acknowledged the High Court may have overlooked the FSL report, as argued by the appellant, but held that the report merely confirmed the presence of the deceased's blood group on the weapon, which by itself did not establish guilt.

The Court cited its earlier decision in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the victim's blood group is not enough to sustain a murder conviction. It also found the prosecution's evidence on motive to be vague.

The Court observed that it could only intervene if the evidence pointed solely to the accused's guilt and ruled out innocence. It concluded that the prosecution had not presented such conclusive evidence and that the view taken by the High Court was the only possible one.

“Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence. In the present case, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence to bring home the charges. The only possible view is the one taken by the High Court, i.e., the innocence of the accused”, the Court held.

Finding no infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017

Case Title – State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 691

Click Here To Read/Download Order