Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court examined the validity of using microscopic hair comparison as the sole basis for convicting an accused of murder. The case involves the death of an individual with circumstances pointing towards the accused, leading to his conviction in the trial court. However, the High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, critically assessed the evidentiary value of microscopic hair comparison, questioning its reliability and emphasizing the need for additional corroborative evidence.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, represented by Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Amicus Curiae, challenged the trial court’s decision based on three key circumstances – previous enmity, blood stains on a recovered sword, and microscopic hair comparison. The defense argued against the conclusiveness of these factors, highlighting the lack of motive, inconclusive blood stain evidence, and questioning the integrity of the hair comparison process. On the other side, Mr. Sonak Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for the state, defended the trial court’s findings, asserting the significance of the three circumstances in establishing guilt.

Court’s Judgement:

The High Court carefully examined each circumstance and raised doubts about the prosecution’s case. Firstly, it questioned the motive, considering the involvement of another co-villager as a possible suspect. Secondly, it deemed the blood stains on the sword inconclusive, pointing out the inability to determine their origin and the absence of blood grouping. Lastly, while acknowledging the recovered hairs on the deceased’s palm, the court emphasized the lack of evidence regarding the proper preservation of these hairs before chemical examination.

Drawing upon legal precedents, the court referred to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, highlighting that microscopic hair comparison, while valid, cannot solely lead to personal identification. It cited the Calcutta High Court’s stance that the science of hair comparison is not as perfected as fingerprint analysis, making it unsafe to rely solely on such reports. Additionally, it invoked a Delhi High Court decision, stating that hair analysis, although advanced, requires connecting evidence to link the accused to the crime.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the appellant’s role in the crime was doubtful, and it would be hazardous to convict based solely on microscopic hair comparison. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the murder charge under Section 302 of the IPC.