The well known text book i.e. B.L. Saxena's Law and Techniques relating to Identification of Handwriting, Patna High Court FA No.119 of 2010 dt.13-08-2013 Disputed Documents, Fingerprints, Footprints and Detection of Forgeries revised by Atul Kumar Singla at page 249, clause 8 provides that two finger prints can be declared non-identical on even a single point of material difference between them. If all finger prints differ in their main pattern type or sub-pattern type or ridge counting or ridge tracing or in their ridge characteristics they had surely been impressed by different finger prints. The law relating to Handwriting, Fingerprints and Graphology by Dr. Sarla Gupta (Agrawal), Beniprasad Agrawal, 2012 Edition at chapter 21 synopsis 3, the meaning of pattern has been explained that pattern is the factor which presents either similarity or difference at the first sight. So before considering the details, one may, at the outset, look to find out whether the two finger prints under examination show similar pattern or different pattern. If the pattern happens to be similar, the other details need be looked into. In case the pattern differs, then the impressions are not identical and further details need not be looked into.
In these principles regarding finger prints admittedly in this present case, the pattern was found different, therefore, it was not necessary for the experts to look further details. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect Patna High Court FA No.119 of 2010 dt.13-08-2013 that further details should have been given by the expert. It is settled principles of law that more qualified expert's evidence is to be accepted in preference to the less qualified expert and that too a private expert to whom the photographs of the disputed thumb impression were sent by the advocate without the order of the court.
Patna High Court
Ram Jatan Rai vs Dr. Sita Ram Singh & Ors on 13 August, 2013
