Failure to Explain Blood Stains Is a Strong Incriminating Circumstance: Gujarat High Court Draws Adverse Inference Under Section 313 CrPC

“Scientific Evidence, Coupled With Silence of Accused, Forms a Clinching Link in the Chain”, In a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary value of scientific reports and the consequences of an accused’s silence, the Gujarat High Court held that the failure of accused persons to explain the presence of the deceased’s blood on their clothes constitutes a powerful incriminating circumstance.

The Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a fatal sword assault, while dismissing the State’s appeal against the acquittal of accused No. 3. The Court emphasized that when scientific evidence is placed on record and the accused offer no plausible explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an adverse inference is justified.

The case stemmed from a violent altercation on 24.05.2011 at Chandigadh area near Jogani Mata Temple, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana. The incident was preceded by a minor dispute over water splashing the previous day, which escalated into threats and a police complaint.

On the evening of the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly attacked the deceased, Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Raval, with swords, inflicting multiple incised and penetrating wounds on vital parts of his body. The deceased attempted to escape but was chased and further assaulted. He later succumbed to his injuries at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.

The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting accused No. 3. Both sides challenged the decision before the High Court.

Evidentiary Impact of Unexplained Blood Stains

One of the most crucial aspects of the prosecution case was the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) serological report, which confirmed that the blood group of the deceased was found on the clothes of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and on the recovered swords.

The High Court noted that this was not a case of mere suspicion or proximity. The presence of the deceased’s blood on the clothes of the accused was a “highly incriminating circumstance” which demanded a credible explanation.

However, in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the allegations in a general manner and failed to offer any explanation as to how the blood stains of the deceased came to be found on their clothes.

The Court held that such silence cannot be treated as inconsequential when strong scientific evidence is placed on record. It observed that the failure to explain incriminating circumstances, when combined with other reliable evidence, permits the Court to draw an adverse inference against the accused.

Section 313 CrPC: Not an Empty Formality

The Bench reiterated that examination under Section 313 CrPC is not a mere procedural ritual. It is an opportunity given to the accused to explain circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.

In the present case, the Court found that the accused did not discharge this opportunity meaningfully. The scientific evidence showing the deceased’s blood group on their clothes remained completely unexplained.

The Court observed that when such scientific findings are corroborated by ocular evidence of the complainant, independent testimony of chase with blood-stained swords, and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the chain of circumstances becomes complete.

Scientific Evidence as a “Clinching Link”

The Division Bench described the FSL serological report as forming a “clinching link in the chain.” The presence of the deceased’s blood on both the recovered swords and the clothes of accused Nos. 1 and 2 established a direct nexus between the accused and the homicidal assault.

The Court rejected the defence argument that blood transfer could have occurred due to mere proximity during a quarrel. It held that such a theory was untenable in light of the cumulative circumstances, including motive, eyewitness account, medical opinion regarding sword injuries, and recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused.

The judgment underscores that scientific evidence, when consistent with ocular and medical testimony, carries decisive probative value.

Section 27 Recovery and Corroboration

The swords were recovered from bushes near ONGC well at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even though certain panch witnesses turned partly hostile, the Court relied upon the panchnama, the Investigating Officer’s testimony, and FSL corroboration to uphold the discovery.

Referring to the principles laid down in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Bodhraj @ Bodha v. State of J&K, the Court reiterated that the admissible portion of information leading to discovery must distinctly relate to the fact discovered. In the present case, the discovery of blood-stained swords directly connected the accused to the crime.

Conviction Upheld, Acquittal Maintained

On a cumulative assessment, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed murder with common intention under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Conversely, with regard to accused No. 3, the Court found that though her presence and participation in the quarrel were proved, the evidence did not establish shared common intention to commit murder. Applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Bench refused to interfere with her acquittal.

The Gujarat High Court’s ruling serves as a powerful reminder that scientific evidence, particularly forensic and serological reports, can decisively tilt the scales when supported by credible testimony. When an accused fails to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 CrPC, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference.

By affirming the life sentence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissing the State’s appeal against acquittal of accused No. 3, the Court reinforced two important principles of criminal jurisprudence: the evidentiary strength of forensic science and the restrained approach required in appeals against acquittal.

Date of Decision: 24/02/2026