Chance Fingerprints Tallying With Theft Accused Not Reliable When Spot & Manner Of Lifting Fingerprint Not Disclosed

In the instant case also, as observed above, neither

PW-5 - Investigating Officer nor PW-6 - Fingerprint expert,

has, anywhere, stated as to from which spot or from which

article the 'Chance Fingerprint' was lifted, and by whom and in

what manner. The person who is said to have lifted the

Fingerprint was not examined by the prosecution for the

reasons best known to it. The alleged 'Chance Fingerprint'

and also the article from which it might have been lifted also

have not been produced before the Court. In such a

circumstance, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the

Fingerprint expert that the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him

for examination was corresponding to the fingerprint of the

accused and proceeding to convict the accused. {Para 26}

27. In such a circumstance, when there are several

gaps in the case of the prosecution as to the description of the

place and the article from which the fingerprint was lifted, as

to who lifted the Fingerprint, as to the manner adopted in

lifting the fingerprints and also in the absence of seizing and

producing the article from which the Fingerprint was said to

have been lifted, the same would make it unsafe to rely upon the

report given upon the examination of such an alleged Fingerprint by the Fingerprint expert.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

Thippeswamy @ Kunta  Vs State by Challakere Police,

BEFORE

 Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

DATED:  6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

Print Page

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