With no eye-witness, the case relied heavily on the blood found on the clothes of the victim.
That blood evidence can make or mar a criminal case is known. It can establish the link between an individual and a criminal act, besides serving as a strong investigative tool otherwise. However, the tried and tested instrument can get blunted in rare cases. The Saki Naka police discovered this to their dismay recently.
In what they believed to be an open and shut case, matters got complicated when both the accused and his alleged killer turned out to be of the same blood group. The police had pegged their case on blood evidence assuming it was conclusive enough to nail the accused. They have now been allowed to conduct a DNA analysis of the evidence by a city court.
According to the police, Sitaram Shahu, the accused, killed his brother-in-law Shivprasad Shahu by smashing him with a boulder. Shivprasad’s body was found near a building in Saki Naka, where he worked as a watchman, on December 5, 2009.
Sitaram was a suspect from the beginning and the police had found a pile of bloodied clothes hidden in an electric cabin room. He had allegedly confessed before a panch witness that he had worn those clothes while killing Shivprasad. The police were satisfied that they had cracked the case within a day.
Though there were no eye-witnesses, the case relied heavily on the circumstance of finding the clothes allegedly carrying blood stains of Shivprasad.
However, when the case began before the sessions court, Sitaram filed a discharge application. Additional public prosecutor, Usha Jadhav realised that the blood group of the accused and the blood stains found on the cloth seized from the accused was the same -B+.
“Even the Rh factor was the same. This happens in very rare cases. I filed an application for DNA analysis should be done in this case because it’s a very important piece of circumstantial evidence. We will seek the DNA samples of a relative of the accused for comparison,” said Jadhav. On Tuesday, additional sessions judge SC Chandak passed an order allowing the tests.
Former FSL director, Rukmini Krishnamurthy said, “In such cases, DNA test should have been done. Blood test is not a foolproof test. DNA test brings out the person’s uniqueness.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}