Mere Absence Of FSL Report Cannot Be Fatal To Prosecution Case If Chain Of Evidence Is Complete: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report does not automatically demolish the prosecution's case in a trial based on circumstantial evidence, provided the chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that while forensic evidence is a valuable corroborative tool, its absence does not create a "missing link" if other cogent evidence, such as motive, last-seen theory, and recovery of weapons, establishes the guilt of the accused to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience.

The appellant, Arif Noormohammed Shaikh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, in 2014 for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the appellant, who was addicted to alcohol and suspicious of his wife’s character, murdered her in their rented home in Junnar. While the appellant pleaded alibi, claiming he was at his native place, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to convict him, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether a complete chain of circumstantial evidence was established to prove the guilt of the appellant in the absence of an eyewitness. Specifically, the court examined whether the failure to produce an FSL report regarding blood-stained clothes and seized articles proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

Establishing the Circumstantial Chain

The court reiterated the settled legal principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently established and form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused. The court identified motive, the homicidal nature of the death, the fact that the couple resided together, the last-seen theory, and the recovery of incriminating articles as the core links in the chain of evidence.

Proving Motive and Homicidal Death

The prosecution established motive through the testimonies of the deceased’s father and neighbours, who confirmed that the appellant frequently quarreled with and assaulted his wife under the influence of alcohol. Regarding the nature of death, the medical officer’s testimony regarding the ante-mortem injuries, including a skull fracture and haemorrhage caused by a heavy object, left no doubt that the death was homicidal, despite a minor lapse in the post-mortem report’s terminology.

Court Affirms Last-Seen Theory

The court placed significant weight on the "last-seen" circumstance. Because the crime occurred within the couple's private dwelling, the burden shifted to the appellant to explain the death of his wife. The court noted that the appellant failed to provide any plausible explanation or evidence to support his plea of alibi, leading to the logical inference of his culpability.

"Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together... it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for the commission of the crime."

Non-Fatal Nature of Missing FSL Report

Addressing the appellant's argument regarding the absence of the FSL report for the seized blood-stained weapons and clothes, the court held that such reports are merely corroborative. Citing precedents, the bench emphasized that even if a serologist fails to determine the blood group due to disintegration or other factors, the recovery of weapons following a disclosure statement remains a strong piece of evidence. The court concluded that mere procedural lapses or the absence of forensic documentation do not break the chain of evidence if the surrounding circumstances are overwhelmingly incriminating.

The court ultimately concluded that the cumulative weight of the evidence left no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Finding no merit in the appeal, the bench upheld the conviction and dismissed the matter.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026