Protecting the crime scene is crucial to any investigation. Nowadays, mobile forensic science units are working at the district level in Rajasthan, India, so that forensic experts can reach the scene of the crime as early as possible. Over the years, criminals have tried many ingenious ways to hide, clean up, and remove evidence such as blood, weapons, and tools, but it's an area where criminal justice technology has always stayed one step ahead of them.
Recently, an interesting case of murder involving a young married woman was unraveled by the crime scene team. The collection of evidence and laboratory examination of exhibits provided the corroborative evidence necessary to prove the victim’s in-laws were trying to mislead the Investigating Officer by fabricating a story of looting and murder.
Blood is the most common, and perhaps most important, form of evidence in criminal justice today. There's no substitute for it, whether for medical or forensic purposes. Its presence always links a suspect and victim to one another and to the scene of the crime. Bloodstain patterns tell a lot about position and movement during the crime, who struck whom first, in what manner, and how many times.1-3 In forensic cases, blood has always been considered class evidence, but the potential exists for individualized blood typing, and even today, forensic serologists can provide testimony with some strong probability estimates linking a single individual, and that individual only, to a bloodstain.4 Consider that identical twins may have the same DNA profile but completely different antibody profiles and you begin to see how promising the field of forensic serology really is.
The physical examination of blood at the crime scene in the present case revealed the entire story of the crime in addition to proving the inaccuracy of the story of theft and consequent murder reported by her in-laws. The mother in-law of the deceased told the investigating team that her daughter in-law died during a struggle with intruders who entered the house with the intention of robbing them. She said that her and her husband were bolted in the adjacent room during the incident.The laboratory study of blood on various articles provided evidence against the in laws of the deceased who were the real murderers.
Scene of the Crime
At the crime scene, we observed the following:
a) Victim’s Body: The victim’s dead body was lying on the floor of her room. Her head was smashed by a blunt weapon. Few scratch marks were present on the neck of the deceased.
b) Blood: Blood was also present in various places in the room. A small amount of blood was detected in the bathroom and in the soil beneath the outlet of the bathroom. A blood smeared stone was also discovered.
c) Blood Spatter: The result of the blood stain pattern study at the scene revealed struggle by the deceased. There was also evidence of movement in the blood stains from the room where the dead body was recovered to the room where the mother in law of the deceased was allegedly kept by the intruders.The presence of blood stains in this room further confirmed the false statement of the in-laws, as blood should not have been present in this room if they were not involved in the crime.
Physical examination of the blood stains was performed to reconstruct the scene of crime. The crime scene was also documented photographically. All the questionable blood stains were chemically tested for the presence of blood using a Benzidine test.6 It was observed at the scene that this was not an actual case of attempted robbery and was fabricated as inferred by the unopened containers of valuables which were not taken by the intruders. The dust on the boundary wall also proved that the intruders did not run away by crossing it, as alleged. To link the in-laws with the crime, a thorough examination of both the suspects was conducted at the Police Station. Blood was detected on the father in-law’s shirt and on the mother in-law’s saree. The father in-law’s blood stained pants were later recovered by the Investigating Officer. This proved the father in-law was in the house during the incident, contrary to his statement. Transfer of blood from the deceased to the in-laws, as observed by the team, could only be the result of their involvement in the crime.