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

Whether police can obtain specimen fingerprint of accused without order of magistrate?

  The three Judge Bench clearly held that it was not
necessary for the Police officer to obtain an order
from a Magistrate for obtaining specimen of
fingerprints. Law laid down by three-Judge Bench
judgment is thus clearly applicable in the present
case. {Para 16}

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2017

SONVIR @ SOMVIR Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ... 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Dated: JULY 02, 2018
Citation:(2018) 8 SCC 24

Print Page

How to appreciate Expert evidence of Fingerprint marks?

As far as finger prints on the cello tape are concerned, the report is that print marked 'D' on cello tape matched with specimen of the Appellant and prints marked 'A' to 'C' were unfit for comparison and print 'B' did not match with either of the accused.

10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that only on print mark 'D', the finger prints were found to be matching with the specimen of the Appellant. However, what is significant is that in the court it was found that print 'D' was missing on the cello tape roll. In view thereof, print 'D' could not be relied upon. Insofar as print marks 'A' to 'C' are concerned, the report of the expert is that they were unfit for comparison. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been satisfactorily proved. In the absence of any motive on the part of the Appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship with A1 and hardly any circumstance clinching to point accusing finger on the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the Appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt as his culpability has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 623/2013

Decided On: 11.01.2017

 Debapriya Pal

Vs.

State of West Bengal

Coram:

A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1246

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

Precaution to be taken by police while taking specimen finger print

Thus perusal of above evidence does not conclusively establish that it is appellant/accused whose thumb impression is appearing in the purchase register at sr. No. 162, which has been proved as Exh. 53 by the prosecution. For reasons already recorded above seizure of register itself becomes doubtful. It is attempt of prosecution to bring on record through finger print expert P.W16, that the said thumb impression in purchase register is of the present appellant/accused who disclosed his name to P.W. 13 and 14 as Kaluram son of Hiraman Baraskar, resident of Kundi. Even if it is presumed that finding reached by this expert is correct, still it only may prove that impression in purchase register matches with specimen impression. But there is absolutely no evidence to connect said specimen impression with present appellant. PW15 police inspector Ajabrao Gawande has nowhere spoken about the mode and manner in which he proceeded to procure specimen or undisputed finger print impressions of appellant. These documents of purchase and pledge with evidence of P.W. 13 and 14 read with evidence of P.W. 15 police inspector and P.W. 16 finger print expert, therefore does not substantiate the story of the prosecution that the accused initially pledged the silver necklace Article 12 with P.W. 13 and then sold it to him on 11.1.2001. In his Section 313 statement appellant has denied that any thumb impression was made by him in purchase register. He has denied all memorandum of admissions allegedly made by him under Section 27 and even alleged recoveries in pursuance thereof. He denied that he pledged or sold any necklace to PW-13. This evidence in relation to finger print needs to be appreciated in this background. The evidence of expert also does not mention any reasons for the conclusions reached and hence, defence could not effectively cross-examine him. This Court also can not judicially evaluate relevance or otherwise of those reasons and find out points or number of similarities noticed by him or his office. Apart from this, his evidence is inherently week because he has tried to borrow by pointing out the alleged similar opinion of others working under him. There is one more reason which prompts us to discard the evidence of this witness. This expert PW-16 has stated that he tallied left hand thumb impression of Kishorilal shown by letter "S.L." in Ex. B-2 with the disputed thumb impression of Ex. A-1in the purchase register. These exhibit numbers are given by PW-15 while forwarding these impressions and disputed impression to Superintendent of police for obtaining opinion of department of PW-16 vide Ex. 67. Perusal of records reveal that there are Page 2381 3 separate papers marked as Ex. B-1, Ex. B-2 & Ex. B-3 by PW-15 & placed on record by prosecution as containing specimen impressions of appellant. It shows that PW-15 Shri Gawande has on 18/1/2001 obtained the same and all 3 sheets appear to be signed by him & by Milind Tulaskar (PW-11) and one Bhansali as pancha. On each sheet, the impressions appear in 3 rows. However as already found above neither PW-15 nor PW-11 have uttered a word about the mode, manner and process in which this was accomplished though in forwarding letter it is mentioned that impressions were obtained in presence of panchas. PW-11 has turned hostile while other pancha Bhansali has not been examined by prosecution at all. On each sheet the name of police constable Ajaykumar, B.C. No. 1420 is mentioned in front while on reverse his sign appears as finger print operator. From each sheet it appears that Ajaykumar was at the relevant time attached to Achalpur Police Station. Seal or stamp on reverse of sheet mentions that it is "finger search slip". In 12 heads below it, information like name of finger print bureau, name of police station, name of accused, name of his father, age of accused, caste of accused, his residential address and concerned police station, name of state of his residence, crime number and sections in which he was arrested, date & time of arrest and lastly the date of obtaining the finger impression have been filled in. Below it appear the words " signature of finger print operator" and illegible signature above it may be of Ajaykumar. Below this signature appear official seal with name & designation of "A.C. Gawande" i.e. PW-15. Prosecution has neither examined this Ajaykumar nor proved these details or contents. If Ajaykumar acted as finger print operator, it is perhaps he who obtained all specimen impressions and it was obligatory for prosecution to tender him in evidence to explain all relevant facts. It needs to be stated that in last or third row on each sheet of paper there appear impressions of upper portion of both palms, particularly all 10 fingers i.e. entire or complete portion of every finger. Impression on left of each sheet appears to be of fingers of left hand palm and that on right side appears to be of right palm fingers from placement of thumbs therein though any sheet does not expressly state it to be so. Above this row there are two rows of impressions, each consisting of 5 impressions. There is no mention on any of the sheets whether said impressions are only of thumb or thumbs &/or of tips of finger/fingers. Similarly it is not mentioned whether these impressions are of only one hand or of both hands. The expert witness PW-16 Pralhad has stated that he has put remarks as "S.R." & "S.L." by putting a border around it on first print in first & second row respectively in Ex. B-2. First impression at top has been put in a square by him with words "S.R." in it. Again first impression in second row has been put in a square by him with words "S.L." in it. Perusal of Ex. B-2 does not reveal any basis for putting such labels. Thus specimen impressions obtained by PW 15 ought to have been independently proved by prosecution by pointing out which impression is of which hand or finger. Prosecution has only proved fact of forwarding alleged specimen impression sheets but has failed to establish that said specimen are of appellant before us. In absence of this evidence connecting the specimen with accused/appellant, we find that the report of finger print expert does not assist the respondent prosecution in any way.

Bombay High Court

Mr. Kishorilal S/O Fulchand ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 22 October, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 (109) Bom L R 2363

Bench: D Sinha, B Dharmadhikari

Print Page

How to appreciate fingerprint evidence?

We have examined the evidence of the prosecution regarding the taking of specimen fingerprints of the respondent, their comparison and examination with the fingerprint on the currency note by the Director, Finger Print, Bureau, Phillaur, and his report Ex. P. BB. As the impression mark A on the currency note was partly smudged and partly on the design and the printed writing, it was photographically enlarged along with the right middle finger impression of the respondent, and the two photographic enlargements were marked A/A and 1/1 respectively. The Director has given the opinion that the photographically enlarged impression marked A/A was "partly smudged but, otherwise, it is comparable and there exist sufficient (not less than 8) points of similarity i.e. matching ridge characteristic details in their identical sequence, without any discordances, between its comparable portion and the corresponding portion of the photographically enlarged right middle finger impression of Ajit Singh marked 1/1." The Director has further stated that he had graphically shown the 8 points of similarity "in their same form and position" and had indicated the "nature, direction and sequence of each point" in it's relevant circle. He has expressed the categorical opinion that so many points of similarity could not be found to occur in impressions of different thumbs and fingers and that they were therefore "identical" or were "of one and the same person." There were other impressions also on the currency notes, but they were either sufficiently smudged and partly interfered with by the design and the printed matter or were sufficiently faint and were rejected as unfit for comparison.

Nothing- substantial has been urged to challenge the opinion of the, Director of the Finger Print Bureau, and all that has been argued is that as there were only,, 8; points, of similarity, there was not enough basic for the expert's opinion about the identity of the fingerprints. Reference in, this connection has, been made to B. L. Saxena's. fixation of Handwriting, Disputed Documents, Finger Prints, Foot Print.$ and Detection, of Foregeries", 1968 edition, page 247, Walter R. Scott's "Fingerprint Mechanics" page 62, and, M. K Mehta's "The Identification of Thumb Impressions and, the Cross- Examination of Finger Print Experts" 2nd edition page 28.We have gone through these books but they do not really support the argument of- the learned counsel for the respondent. While referring to the old practice of looking for a minimum of 12 identical characteristic details, Saxena has admitted that the modern view is that six points of similarity of pattern are sufficient to establish the identity of the, fingerprints. Walter Scott has stated that "as a matter of practice, most experts who work with fingerprints constantly satisfy themselves as to identity with eight or even six points of identity. Mehta has also stated that in the case of blurred impressions the view of some of the Indian experts is that if there were three identical points, they would be sufficient to prove the identity. There is no gainsaying the fact that a majority of fingerprints found at crime scene or crime articles are partially smudged, and it is for the experienced and skilled fingerprint expert to say whether a mark is usable as fingerprint evidence. Similarly it is for a competent technician to examine and give his opinion whether the identity can be established, and if so whether that can be done on eight or even less identical characteristics in an appropriate case. As has been pointed out, the opinion of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau in this case is clear and categorical and has been supported by adequate reasons. We have therefore no hesitation in accepting it as correct.

Supreme Court of India

Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978

Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1183, 1978 SCR (3) 823

BENCH:

SHINGAL, P.N.

DESAI, D.A.

Print Page

How to appreciate finger print evidence?

Both the above contentions are devoid of merit. As already seen on the direction of the investigating officer, finger print expert PW6 Surinder Singh reached the occurrence place at 9.00 A.M. on the occurrence day itself and raised the finger impressions on the two glass tumblers and duly packed them with his seal and date and handed over the same to the investigating officer for onward transmission to the finger print bureau. The seal was found to be intact by PW25 finger print expert who opened it for examination. Exh.PW25/G is the 10 digits finger impression of accused Charanjit Singh. It contains the signature of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date. Exh. PW25/H is 10 digits finger impression of accused Surjit Singh. It also contains the signature of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date. In fact the word 'attested' is put by the Magistrate while putting his signature in the said documents. In the facts of the case in which the decision cited supra arose the specimen finger prints of the accused were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and in such circumstances this Court held that it is unsafe to accept the said evidence. As already seen in the present case the specimen finger print impression have been taken in the presence of Judicial Magistrate and there is no room for any suspicion as to its bonafide.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Punjab vs Jagga Singh Etc on 17 December, 2014

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan

Print Page