Failure to Establish Blood Origin on Weapons Does Not Weaken Prosecution's Case: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case

Kerala High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Sri Anchalose. The ruling affirmed that the concurrent participation of the accused, nature of injuries inflicted, and recovery of weapons supported the prosecution's case, and dismissed the defence's claim that the failure to establish the blood origin on the recovered weapons weakened the case.

The case arose from a long-standing enmity between the deceased Anchalose and the accused, primarily over complaints regarding illegal bootlegging activities. On March 3, 2007, Anchalose was intercepted near a toddy shop and brutally assaulted with wooden sticks. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and past incidents of animosity to establish the accused’s motive and common intention.

Eyewitnesses PW1 (Ajitha, the deceased's sister) and PW2 (Anil Kumar, his brother-in-law) consistently stated that they saw the accused attack Anchalose with wooden stumps, causing fatal injuries. The postmortem report revealed multiple contusions and fractures, confirming blunt force trauma as the cause of death.

The trial court convicted the accused based on these findings, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 each. The accused appealed, arguing that lack of independent witnesses, discrepancies in testimony, and failure to determine the blood origin on weapons warranted acquittal.

Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC
The appellants contended that there was no direct evidence of a premeditated plan, arguing that their conviction under Section 34 IPC was unsustainable.

The High Court rejected this argument, stating: “Common intention can be inferred from circumstances. The accused acted in concert, targeting the deceased with lethal force. The manner of attack and shared participation satisfy the requirements under Section 34 IPC.”

The court emphasized that prior concert or meeting of minds need not be proved explicitly, and that common intention can be inferred from the nature of the attack, choice of weapons, and the accused's conduct before and after the incident.

FIR Omissions Not Fatal to Prosecution's Case
The defence argued that PW1’s presence was not mentioned in the FIR, raising doubts about her testimony. However, the court held: "The FIR is not a verbatim record of the prosecution case. Minor omissions do not vitiate the prosecution’s case if supported by substantive evidence. The prompt registration of the FIR, coupled with corroborative evidence, strengthens the prosecution’s version.”

The court relied on Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., reiterating that minor omissions in the FIR do not render the entire prosecution case unreliable.

Forensic Evidence and Recovery of Weapons
The defence challenged the reliability of the weapon recovery, citing the failure to determine the blood origin on the sticks used in the assault. The court dismissed this argument, ruling: “Delay in forensic examination does not invalidate the recovery, as serological limitations often prevent accurate blood grouping. The presence of blood on the recovered weapons, coupled with eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, sufficiently links the accused to the crime.”

The court referred to R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266, emphasizing that failure to determine blood origin due to haematological changes does not weaken the prosecution's case if other evidence establishes guilt.

The postmortem report noted 35 injuries, including severe head fractures. The court rejected the defence’s claim that the injuries resulted from a motorcycle accident, stating:

"The nature and distribution of injuries rule out a mere fall or accident. The contusions, fractures, and elongated wounds suggest deliberate blunt force trauma, consistent with eyewitness testimony and weapon recovery.”

The Kerala High Court concluded that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of blood on the weapons, eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and motive established a clear case of murder with common intention. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence of the accused were upheld.
 

Date of Decision: February 5, 2025