Supreme Court: What would be the effect if nail clippings of deceased is not having any blood which could be tallied with blood group of accused?

33. Though with the ruling out of the circumstances relating to the recovery of the ornaments as (sic) been established conclusively, the chain of the circumstantial evidence snaps badly, we find that there are some other circumstances also in the prosecution case which militate against its correctness. Admittedly, the nail clippings of the nails of the deceased had been taken by the police. There was also recovery of the hair from near I the cot where the dead body was lying and the removal of the hair from the scalp of the appellant by the I.O. for the purpose of their comparison. The report of the chemical examiner has not connected the hair recovered from the cot with those of the appellant. There is no material on the record either to show that the nail clipping had any blood, which could have tallied with the blood group of the appellant. Thus, both the nail clippings and the hair have failed to connect the appellant with the crime.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1985

Decided On: 05.03.1993

Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, JJ.

Author: A.S. Anand, J.

Citation: AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT1723,MANU/SC/0281/1993,

1993 (3) SCC(SUPP) 681,

Print Page

Supreme Court explains how unproven Presence of accused on crime site Snaps the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence into "Slender Titbits" of Mere Suspicion

The up-shot of the matter is that Shrinarayan Sharma did not tell the police that he called out the appellant or that the appellant replied that he will not open the door. Secondly, Renukabai did not tell her husband Ramrao that when she entered the house of the appellant and found the dead body of Sunita in the bathroom, the appellant was present in the house. Thirdly, none of the large group of persons who were present in the house of Ramrao disclosed, what was certainly the most significant circumstance, that the appellant was sleeping in the court-yard while the dead body was lying in the bathroom of his house. Finally, no attempt was made immediately after the FIR was lodged to have the appellant arrested and there is no evidence on the point as to who arrested him, from where, and in what circumstances. {Para 25}

26. As we have stated earlier, the crucial link in the chain of circumstances is the presence of the appellant in his house at the time when the dead body of Sunita was discovered. Once that link snaps, the entire case would have to rest on slender tit-bits here and there. This discussion disposes of the second part of the 4th circumstance part of the 5th circumstance and circumstances (6) and (7).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 1980

Decided On: 17.12.1980

Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., Baharul Islam and A.P. Sen, JJ.

Author:Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.

Citation: 1980 INSC 237,MANU/SC/0211/1980.

Print Page