SC:Human blood stained soil sample not to be rejected merely because blood group can’t be ascertained

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 5th November 2019, in the matter of  Rohtas & Anr. v. The State of Haryana pronounced that the fact that the blood group of the human blood stained soil cannot be ascertained, can be no basis to discard the sample of recovered human blood stained soil from the spot near the place where victim was assaulted by the accused.

The Supreme Court, while entertaining an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, will not attempt to reappreciate the evidence on record unless the decision of the Trial Court or the High Court is shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or the conclusion reached by the Courts below is, on the face of it, perverse.  (Para 12)

Merely because another view on the same evidence is possible, that cannot be the basis to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below much less concurrent finding of facts. (Para 12)

A relief wrongly given to co-­accused cannot be given to an accused against whom clinching evidence has come on record about the manner in which the offence was committed by him. (This inference has been drawn on the basis of Para 16)

Indubitably, just because the witnesses are related cannot be the basis to discard their evidence, if it is otherwise natural and truthful. (Para 20)

It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and then to arrive at a finding of guilt of an accused or otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that evidence is found to be deficient qua another accused named in the same offence. (Para 20)

The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. (Para 20)

The fact that the blood group of the human blood stained soil cannot be ascertained, can be no basis to discard the sample of recovered human blood stained soil from the spot near the place where victim was assaulted by the accused. (This inference has been drawn on the basis of Para 22)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_05-Nov-2019

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *