Collect Blood Samples Of Injured Or Deceased & Submit Blood Grouping Reports In Criminal Cases: Karnataka High Court Directs Authorities

The Karnataka High Court has directed 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 and to submit such blood grouping reports to the Court.

The Dharwad Bench was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, by which the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai observed, “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. 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 is our experience that the investigating agency often commits such mistakes. 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.”

The Bench reiterated that the sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained weapon cannot form a basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the crime.

Advocate A.R. Patil appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while Additional State Public Prosecutor (SPP) M.B. Gundawade appeared for the Respondent/State.

Case Background

A case was registered against the Appellant-accused in connection with the murder of a woman. The Trial Court held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court held that the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and ill-treated her physically and mentally despite advice by the elders of the village.

Further relying on the evidence, coupled with the failure on the part of the accused to offer any explanation regarding the cause of the death of his wife, the Trial Court held that the accused has committed the murder of his wife, suspecting her fidelity. Being aggrieved by the conviction, the accused filed an Appeal before the High Court. According to him, the Trial Court did not consider the medical report and committed a serious error in relying on highly interested versions of witnesses.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “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.”

The Court pointed out one lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not obtaining the blood grouping report of the deceased in the case.

“In his evidence, 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. 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. However, the prosecution has not produced any other material on record to show that those blood stains were that of the deceased”, it noted.

The Court added that the above noted lapse on the part of investigating agency has no bearing on outcome of the present case because of the reliable ocular testimony available on record, however, the same cannot be said in every case.

“The capacity of the accused to pay is an important aspect of any order under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. and involves a summary enquiry unless the facts emerging in the trial make such enquiry unnecessary. Such enquiry can precede the order on sentence to enable the court to take a view on both the question of sentence and compensation to be awarded to the victim or their family”, it observed.

The Court remarked that 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.

“Thus, the plight of the three children left behind by the deceased and their need for rehabilitation is clear. … The materials on record suggest that the trial court imposed only a nominal fine on the accused, taking into account his financial condition. The spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3 indicates that the accused was leaving his wife and three children in a house comprising only one hall measuring 20 feet by 7 feet and another small portion used as a kitchen, pooja room, and bathroom. Nonetheless, it was the duty cast of the trial court to disclose the application of its mind to this aspect by recording reasons. This Court finds no justification for not invoking Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. in this case”, it further said.

Conclusion

The Court also reiterated that the power to award compensation under Section 357 is not ancillary to other sentences and sentences such as imprisonment and/or fine are imposed independently of any victim compensation, and these two aspects stand on completely different footings.

“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. In the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, we opine that apart from recommending compensation to the dependants of the victim under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C., it is essential to issue a direction to all the judicial officers working in the State to strictly comply with mandatory requirements of law”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, upheld the conviction, and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the Judgment to the concerned authorities.

Cause Title- Bhimappa v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment