New Delhi, June 27: Upholding the acquittal of an accused, the Supreme Court has ruled that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon bearing the same blood group as that of the deceased would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and P.B. Varale was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the Rajasthan government challenging a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence of murder.

In its impugned order, a division bench set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in December 2008, which had convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 100, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

During the trial, the respondent was charged with the murder of Chotu Lal, which took place on the intervening night of March 1 and 2, 2007.

Initially, an FIR was filed against unknown assailants, and at a later stage, the respondent was arraigned in the case on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution led circumstantial evidence in the form of motive, alleging the respondent was having an evil eye on the wife of the deceased; recovery of the weapon of offence and the FSL report indicating that the blood group on the weapon matched with the blood group of the deceased (B +ve).

Contrary to the findings of the trial court, the Rajasthan High Court opined that the prosecution could not prove the complete chain of circumstances required to bring home the guilt of the accused in the case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and proceeded to acquit the respondent.

Concurring with the view taken by the Rajasthan HC, the Justice Mehta-led Bench said: “We find that the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, i.e., the motive and the recovery of the blood stained weapon, even taken in conjunction cannot constitute the complete chain of incriminating circumstances required to bring home the charges against the accused.”

“The High Court seems to have overlooked the FSL report, which fact was stressed upon by learned counsel for the appellant (state government). 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,” it added.

The apex court, relying upon a previous judgment of the apex court, opined 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.

It discarded the theory of motive, saying the evidence in that regard seems to be very vague and vacillating.

The Justice Mehta-led Bench added that the law is well settled by a catena of apex court decisions 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.

Dismissing the appeal of the state government, the Supreme Court said: “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.”