How to prove chance fingerprints lifted from spot of offence?

 Contention of respondents is that evidence of PW-15-Fingerprint Expert incriminates the appellants AK Singh and UK Singh. However, in proving this incriminating evidence, there seems to be lapses on the part of the prosecution. As noticed earlier, police constable Tirumal Kumar- photographer of MFSL Unit had taken the photographs of the preserved chance fingerprints. To prove the chance fingerprints lifted from the entrance glass doors of the bank, the prosecution should have proved the photographs by examining constable-Trimul Kumar and should have produced the negatives of the photographs of the chance fingerprints. This lapse in the prosecution, in our view, cannot result in acquittal of the appellants. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must be scrutinized independently of such lapses either in the investigation or by the prosecution or otherwise, the result of the criminal trial would depend upon the level of investigation or the conduct of the prosecution. Criminal trials should not be made casualty for such lapses in the investigation or prosecution.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Ajay Kumar Singh vs Flag Officer Commanding & Ors on 13 July, 2016

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Citation:AIR 2016 SC 3528            
                              

Print Page

Whether accused can be acquitted due to lapse on part of investigating officer?

 Contention of respondents is that evidence of PW-15-Fingerprint Expert incriminates the appellants AK Singh and UK Singh. However, in proving this incriminating evidence, there seems to be lapses on the part of the prosecution. As noticed earlier, police constable Tirumal Kumar- photographer of MFSL Unit had taken the photographs of the preserved chance fingerprints. To prove the chance fingerprints lifted from the entrance glass doors of the bank, the prosecution should have proved the photographs by examining constable-Trimul Kumar and should have produced the negatives of the photographs of the chance fingerprints. This lapse in the prosecution, in our view, cannot result in acquittal of the appellants. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must be scrutinized independently of such lapses either in the investigation or by the prosecution or otherwise, the result of the criminal trial would depend upon the level of investigation or the conduct of the prosecution. Criminal trials should not be made casualty for such lapses in the investigation or prosecution.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Ajay Kumar Singh vs Flag Officer Commanding & Ors on 13 July, 2016

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Citation:AIR 2016 SC 3528

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of Finger Print Expert?

PW18­Devidas is Finger Print Expert.  Learned counsel
for the accused criticized the manner in which the finger prints
and   the   photographs   were   taken,   so   also   the   approach   of
Supervising Officers, who approved the report of finger prints as
that   of   accused   no.2­Nitin.    We  quote   the   evidence   of   PW18­
Devidas, which reads thus: 
“.....I then compared the finger prints of the accused
with the fit chance print.   The chance print which
was found fit when I compared with the prints of
the hands of accused sent by the police, I found that
the chance print tallied with the left print palm of
accused Nitin.  I then prepared my opinion on 24­7­
2008.  Exh.­124 is the same.  My opinion has been
approved by Deputy Director Finger Prints, Nagpur.
To that effect, I received a letter.   That letter was
addressed to police station Gadge Nagar and copy
was   given   to   me.     The   copy   which   I   received   is
marked at Exh.125.  At the office of Deputy Director
Finger Prints, Nagpur as per procedure my opinion
was re­examined and thereafter the Deputy Director
approved my opinion.  The committee approved my

opinion.     The   endorsement   to   that   effect   is   on
Exh.124.   While comparing the chance prints and
the impressions of the hands of accused I took the
enlargement   thereof.     I   have   produced   those
enlargements.  They are marked at Exhs. 126 and
127.   I marked the characteristic thereon.   I had
shown  nine  characteristic  in the enlargements  by
giving number.   I have prepared the statement of
reasoning thereon which is marked at Exh.128.  As
per my opinion the print of accused Nitin tallied
with the chance print.
(2) It is my say that the finger prints of one
person   never   tally   with   the   finger   prints   of   any
another  person.    These  finger  prints  of  a person
never change.”
33. We have perused the cross­examination of this witness.
We have also applied our mind to the expert opinion on the finger
prints.  We do not find anything in the cross­examination to reject
the   evidence   of   this   witness   on   the   proof   of   finger   prints   of
accused   no.2­Nitin.     The   minor   nature   of   discrepancy   in   the
certification by higher authorities after examination pointed to us
by counsel for the accused persons also does not impress us since
there is no material discrepancy in the drawing of finger prints and
examination thereof and the conclusion arrived at namely that the

finger prints collected from the spot matched with accused no.2­
Nitin's   finger   prints.     The   submission   that   no   injuries   were
mentioned in the arrest Panchanama of accused persons also does
not impress us since for independently recording the finger prints
that would not be relevant and it is clear that by itself would not
create any doubt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1/2013
State of Maharashtra,
thr. PSO Gadge, Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. Dist. Amravati. ...APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan,

CORAM:­  A. B. CHAUDHARI & Z. A. HAQ, JJ.

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment:­  17.01.2014

Print Page