Source: Orissa High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Orissa High Court in the matter of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha, has held that evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.

What was the Background of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha Case?

• In this case, the appellant Pata @ Pratap Puri faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the accusation that on 09^th June 2003 at village Tilada under Salipur police station, Cuttack, he committed murder of Pabitra Kumar Das, (the deceased) by means of a sword and that on the same day he was in illegal possession of a sword without any authority.
• The Trial Court acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 found him guilty under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Orrisa High Court.
• The High Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed that the evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.
• It was further stated that even though microscopic hair comparison has been found to be a valid and reliable scientific methodology, it cannot solely form the basis upon which a conviction can be recorded against an accused.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Himangshu Pahari v. The State (1986).
  • In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that the science of comparison of hairs has not yet reached perfection like the science of comparison of fingerprints. Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon such a report.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 302 of IPC

• Section 302 of IPC deals with the punishment for murder whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 300 of IPC deals with Murder.

Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959

• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Arms and Ammunition.
  • The main objective of this Act is to regulate and restrict the circulation of arms and ammunition, which were illegal.
  • This Act recognized the necessity for certain law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms for certain specific purposes including self-defence.
  • It came into force on 1^st October 1962.
• Section 27 of this Act deals with the punishment for using arms, etc. It states that

(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.