Murder Conviction Can't Be Solely Based Upon Evidence Found From 'Microscopic Hair Comparison': Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has recently held that the evidence adduced from the 'microscopic hair comparison' cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.While doubting the conclusive nature of such scientific evidence, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –“In Modi's “A text book of Medical...
The Orissa High Court has recently held that the evidence adduced from the 'microscopic hair comparison' cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.
While doubting the conclusive nature of such scientific evidence, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –
“In Modi's “A text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology”, 27th Edition, Chapter 10 (Personal Identity), it is mentioned that microscopic hair comparison has been demonstrated to be a valid and reliable scientific methodology, but at the same time, “microscopic hair comparisons alone cannot lead to personal identification and it is crucial that this limitation be conveyed both in the written report and testimony.”
Brief Background
In the night of 08.06.2003, the deceased went to sleep alone on his roof top. In the next morning, the wife of the deceased found him dead in a pool of blood with two deep cut injuries on the left side of his neck.
Subsequently, she proceeded to the police station and lodged the FIR alleging that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased as he had earlier threatened to kill him in connection with theft of a motor pump.
However, she also suspected the possible involvement of another co-villager who had also threatened to kill the deceased on account of a family dispute.
After taking into account the evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the alleged crime. Being aggrieved, he filed this jail criminal appeal impugning the judgment and order of the trial Court.
Court's Observation
After examining the materials on record and also considering the submissions made by both the sides, the Court carved out three major circumstances appearing against the appellant, viz. firstly, there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant. Secondly, blood stains were found from the sword which was recovered pursuant to the recovery statement given by the appellant. Lastly, hair stuck on the right palm of the deceased was chemically examined which was found to be tallied with that of the appellant.
As far as the first circumstance is concerned, the Court was not inclined to accept the proposition of the prosecution that the appellant had motive to commit murder of the deceased, especially when another co-villager is also suspected of committing the crime.
Secondly, the Court held that though some blood stains were detected from the sword, which was recovered pursuant to the recovery evidence adduced by the appellant, but it was observed that the origin of the blood could not be determined. Also, the blood grouping was not done. Therefore, it was held to be inconclusive in nature to inculcate the appellant in the commission of the murder.
So far as the third circumstance is concerned, the Court noted that some hairs were recovered from the right palm of the deceased which tallied with that of the appellant. But the Court was loath to rely upon such evidence mainly on the ground that no evidence was produced to show that after recovery of the hairs from the crime scene, those were kept sealed.
Further, the Court was of the considered opinion that even though microscopic hair comparison has been found to be a valid and reliable scientific methodology, but it cannot solely form the basis upon which a conviction can be recorded against an accused.
The Court relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Himangshu Pahari v. The State, wherein it was held that the science of comparison of hairs has not yet reached perfection like the science of comparison of finger prints. Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon such report.
Similarly, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar @ Bhusan v. State where it was held as follows:
“…even though the science of hair identification may be quite an advanced science and it may be possible to determine the source, it would not be safe to solely rely upon the similarity of hair to convict an accused person - there must be some other connecting evidence to link the accused person with the crime, although the analysis of hair would be an important piece of evidence.”
Having regard for the aforesaid decisions and considering the fact that the recovered hairs were not proved to be kept in a sealed condition before being sent to for the chemical examination, the Bench held that the role of the appellant is doubtful in the crime and it would be hazardous to convict him on the basis of such evidence.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
Case Title: Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha
Case No: JCRLA No. 56 of 2008
Date of Judgment: January 19, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Amicus Curiae
Counsel for the State: Mr. Sonak Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 11