Blood Samples Of Injured Persons Or Deceased Victims Must Be Collected And Blood-Grouping Reports Filed With Trial Papers: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Husband’s Appeal In Wife’s Murder Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai dismissed a convicted husband’s appeal and declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence for the murder of his wife. The prosecution case was that, following a quarrel at their home, the accused assaulted the victim with an axe, causing fatal injuries. In assessing the evidence, the Bench recorded that the investigating agency had not obtained the deceased’s blood-grouping report. It referred to the Investigating Officer’s account of recovering blood-stained articles from the scene and seizing blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the accused, and noted that the FSL report indicated human blood of ‘O’ group but there was no material to connect the stains to the deceased. The Bench accordingly directed the State’s police and prosecutions heads to issue instructions to ensure blood samples are compulsorily collected from injured persons or, where applicable, deceased victims, and that blood-grouping reports accompany the prosecution papers at trial.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and the deceased were spouses, married about 12 years, with three children, and that he suspected her fidelity and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. It was alleged that on 6 January 2019 at about 7.30 a.m., during a quarrel inside their house at Naregal, he assaulted her with an axe on the back of her neck and left cheek, and she died at the spot.
A complaint was lodged at the police station at about 10.00 a.m., leading to registration of the case and investigation. The investigation included inquest, spot and seizure mahazars, recovery of the axe from the scene, and preparation of a spot sketch. A post-mortem conducted on 6 January 2019 recorded deep cut and lacerated injuries and opined death due to shock and haemorrhage. The charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC, and the accused denied the incriminating material in his Section 313 CrPC statement.
At trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on documents and material objects, including testimony of the couple’s child and a neighbour about the assault and immediate aftermath. The defence disputed the eye-witness account and suggested the injuries resulted from an accidental fall on sickle/machetes in the house and also asserted that the accused had approached the police but was implicated. Forensic evidence included chemical examination of 13 articles; the RFSL report recorded human blood of ‘O’ group on seized items, but no material was produced to show the stains matched the deceased, and her blood-grouping report was not obtained.
On the foundational facts and the nature of death, the Bench recorded: “On careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution before the trial court, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding the following factual aspects of the case, i.e., (1) the accused and the deceased, Smt.Uma were the husband and wife; (2) the accused and the deceased had three children, including PW-2, who was the eldest; (3) the accused was residing in a house situated at Naregal along with the deceased and their three children; and (4) on 06.01.2019 at 07.30 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the entrance hall of the accused’s house at Naregal, in a pool of blood with injuries on her neck and face.” It stated: “The deposition of PW-8 coupled with the post mortem report marked at Ex.P7 and the inquest report marked at Ex.P2, unerringly points out that the deceased met with a homicidal death.”
While dealing with the challenge to the child witness’ presence and credibility, the Court recorded: “However, in the considered view of this Court, this aspect cannot be a ground to disbelieve the presence of PW-2 at the place during the incident or to hold that she was not an eye-witness to the incident.” It further stated: “The materials on record indicate that PW-2 gave evidence naturally, with no exaggeration or improvement in her testimony.” and “Therefore, this Court finds no unusualness or reason to doubt the credibility of PW-2 based on her non mention in Ex.P2.” On the significance of admissions in cross-examination, it stated: “In our considered view, the answer is no.” and later recorded: “On a holistic evaluation, PW-2’s testimony is trustworthy and confirms her status as an eye-witness despite that stray statement.”
On the neighbour witness and overall evaluation of the eyewitness account, the Bench recorded: “Therefore, on careful consideration of the depositions of PW-2 and PW-4, we are convinced they were eye witnesses to the incident, and their testimony is truthful and reliable.” It also recorded, in its conclusion on conviction: “On an overall appraisal of the material on record, the Court is satisfied that the trial court correctly applied its mind and rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences. The sentence awarded is commensurate with the offence committed. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference.”
On forensic linkage and the absence of a blood-grouping report, the Bench recorded: “Before parting with the judgment, we find it necessary to point out one lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not obtaining the blood grouping report of the deceased in the case.” Referring to the Investigating Officer’s evidence, it stated: “PW-12 - the Investigating Officer, has stated about the recovery of blood stained articles from the scene of crime as well as the seizure of the blood stained clothes on the persons of the deceased and the accused.”
It recorded: “Further, the prosecution has marked an FSL report pertaining to its chemical analysis at Ex.P10, which states that the blood was human blood of the ‘O’ blood group.” and “However, the prosecution has not produced any other material on record to show that those blood stains were that of the deceased.” On the effect of this lapse in the case before it, the Bench stated: “The above noted lapse on the part of investigating agency has no bearing on out come of the present case because of the reliable ocular testimony available on record. However, the same cannot be said in every case.”
It also recorded: “The very purpose of collecting blood stained mud, clothes, and other incriminating articles during the course of investigation is to link the circumstantial evidence and to corroborate the guilt of the accused.” and “If the investigating agency fails to obtain the blood grouping report of the deceased or the injured, as the case may be, the very object of collecting blood stained material would be defeated.” It added: “It is our experience that the investigating agency often commits such mistakes.”
On victim compensation and the impact on the children, the Bench recorded: “This is a case where the accused killed his wife, aged about 32 years, as a result of which their three children i.e, two daughters and a son, were left orphans, all being minors at the time of crime.” It further stated: “The materials on record suggest that the trial court imposed only a nominal fine on the accused, taking into account his financial condition.” and recorded: “Nonetheless, it was the duty cast of the trial court to disclose the application of its mind to this aspect by recording reasons.”
The Court stated: “This Court finds no justification for not invoking Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. in this case.” It also recorded: “The awarding or refusal of compensation may be within the discretion of the court, but reasons are to be recorded by the court to disclose the application of mind.”
The Court directed: “As such, we deem fit to issue a direction to the Director General and Inspector General of Police of Karnataka and the Director of Department of Prosecutions to issue necessary instructions to all concerned, to mandatorily collect the blood samples of the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, and to submit such blood grouping reports to the court as part of the prosecution papers to avoid similar lapses in future.”
“(i) The appeal is dismissed.”
“(ii) As a result, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2021 passed in S.C. No.47/2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is confirmed.”
“(iii) Under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C., a recommendation is made to the District Legal Services Authority, Gadag to award suitable compensation to the children of the deceased, in compliance with NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/ Other Crimes, 2018.”
“(iv) The registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Director General and Inspector General of Police of Karnataka and to the Director of Department of Prosecutions, to issue necessary instructions to the concerned, in compliance with the observations made in Para 25 of the judgment.”
“(v) The registry is directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all the Judicial Officers working in the State for strict compliance with Sections 357 and 357A of Cr.P.C. or corresponding Sections 395 and 396 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the case may be, in all criminal cases.”
“(vi) The registry is directed to return the trial court record to concerned court and send a copy of judgment to the District Legal Services Authority, Gadag for complying with the recommendation made under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C.”
“(vii) The registry is directed to furnish free copy of the judgment to the accused through concerned jail authority.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sri A. R. Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri M. B. Gundawade, Additional State Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Bhimappa S/o Mallappa Bingi v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025: KHC-D:16402-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 100335 of 2022
Bench: Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai
