Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

44. The aforesaid seized materials viz; two bed sheets, an underwear, a pyjama, a knife, one strand of hair and bunch of hair seized from the room of the children; bed sheet seized from the room of the parents of the children; knife recovered from the bathroom situated near the room of the children; scalp hair, blood sample and clothes of the deceased; pyjama, t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; underwear worn by Y at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; vaginal swabs of X and Y; urinal sample and pubic hair of X; blood which oozed from the vagina of X; pubic hair, scalp hair and the blood sample of the accused; clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant; ring found in the pocket of pyjama of the accused; shirt and pyjama worn by X at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital; the blood samples of X and Y; clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence and t- shirt and pyjama worn by Y at the time of occurrence were subjected to forensic evaluation at the FSL.

46. A close perusal of the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A shows that 38 parcels were sent by the Investigating Officer to FSL. Out of the said 38 exhibits, 6 exhibits were hairs. Exhibit No.5 was the bunch of hair seized from the room of the children. Exhibit No.6b was one strand of hair seized from the room of the children. Exhibit No.11 was the scalp hair of the deceased. Exhibit 23 was the pubic hair of X. Exhibit 24 was pubic hair of the accused. Exhibit No.25 was the scalp hair of the accused.

(ii) Hair in exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar in most of the morphological & microscopical characteristics with hair in exhibit 23 i.e. Pubic hair of X & exhibit 24 i.e. Pubic hair of accused.

(iii) No further opinion."

49. Pursuant thereto, a rough report was prepared recording therein the results of the hair examinations conducted by Anita Chhari and the other examinations conducted at FSL with respect to the case property. It is most relevant to note that an error occurred while recording conclusion no. (ii) i.e. „hair in exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar in most of the morphological & microscopical characteristics with hair in exhibit 23 i.e. Pubic hair of X & exhibit 24 i.e. Pubic hair of accused. The error which occurred was that exhibit 24 was referred to as containing scalp hair of the accused. However, said error was detected and duly corrected. The word „scalp‟ was stroked and word „pubic‟ was substituted in its place. It is also relevant to note that conclusion no. (iii) that no opinion could be offered whether exhibit 5 is similar to exhibit 11 and 25 was not recorded in the rough report. On the basis of the aforesaid rough report, the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A was prepared. Unfortunately, the error which had occurred in the rough report and was corrected subsequently found its way in the report Ex.PW-37/A. This practice of callously preparing reports by the officials of FSL is seriously deprecated by this court. It is expected that in future the officials of FSL would be more careful and vigilant while preparing the reports.

50. The correct factual position is that the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was compared with pubic hair of X (exhibit

23) and pubic hair of the accused (exhibit 24). The result of the said comparison was that the characteristics of exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar from the characteristics of exhibit 23 and 24. Additionally, the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was also compared with scalp hair of the deceased (exhibit 11) and scalp hair of the accused (exhibit 25). However, no conclusive opinion could be rendered with regard to the said comparison.