Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. Learned senior counsel submitted that the circumstances relating to lifting of fingerprints, their being forwarded for expert examination, and the report, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is urged that with regards to chance prints found at the place of occurrence, PW-5 Vishal Pandey did not mention signing of the fingerprint slips. Elimination prints were not taken from anyone present at the crime scene. To prove that fingerprints were of the accused, the identity of the specimen prints were not proved since neither the signature of the accused nor their photographs were affixed on Ex. P41, P42, or P43, contrary to what was stated by PW-13 Vijay Singh Chauhan (constable) who mentioned that he took signatures of the accused persons. The specimen prints were not taken before the magistrate on 23.06.2011, and rather on the next day (24.06.2011) at PS MIG. Sending of fingerprints for examination: No witness (PW-13, PW-24, or PW-31) has deposed anything suggesting that prints were sent to the fingerprint branch in a sealed condition. The rule of prudence of taking prints before the magistrate under Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 was breached. Further, specimen fingerprints of the accused were sent to the fingerprint branch after an unexplained delay of 3 days, i.e., 27.06.2011 despite both departments being in Indore. The fingerprint expert’s report (Ex. P84) is not credible because elimination of the deceased’s prints was not explained by PW-24 KK Dwivedi (fingerprint expert) or in his report Ex. P84. Only the final conclusion of elimination has been written about. There is no scientific evidence that fingerprints are unique for all individuals and therefore, heavy reliance cannot be placed on it. It is only corroborative in nature. Further, the counsel highlighted that the fingerprints were not lifted from the knives, pistol and ornaments seized from the accused. Counsel relied on Mohd. Aman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan12 and Chandran @ Surendran & Anr. v. State of Kerala13, for arguing that fingerprint proof cannot ipso facto lead to conviction.

50. Mr. Singh next argued that the fingerprint report relating to chance prints was not reliable, and at best can only be used as corroborative evidence. In this regard, it was argued that the fingerprints obtained from the crime scene were 22 AIR 1956 SC 415 23 1996 (6) SCALE 72 from an open place, accessible to the public, between the period when the door had been opened by PW-5 till the arrival of the investigating agency. While collecting chance fingerprints, no fingerprints of the persons present/ neighbours, or other members of the household, were taken in order to eliminate such prints. PW-3, PW-5, and PW-24 were cross-examined on this account. They deposed that the fingerprints of others to whom the place was accessible, were not taken. With regard to the report (Ex. P84) prepared by the finger-print expert, PW 24 K. K. Dwivedi while conducting the analysis of the fingerprints, some concerns were pointed out. Firstly, failure to describe the method/procedure for lifting of the prints; secondly failure to obtain elimination prints of other persons, for which no explanation has been provided by the police; thirdly, that the expert was unable to provide an explanation about the fact that none of the fingerprints analysed matched those of any of the deceased persons; and fourthly, the expert did not explain why the process under the Madhya Pradesh Police Rules regarding dissection of fingerprint of corpses i.e., Rule 824, was not followed while obtaining the prints of the deceased persons. It was further urged that the expert did not provide a robust process for analysis. The analysis described by fingerprint expert PW-24 claims to rely on an 8-point method. The method followed by PW-24 merely describes Level I of the ACE- V Method (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification Method), used by investigating agencies across jurisdictions. Level 2 and 3 of the ACE-V method was not followed. The 8-point matching system, followed for the analysis, was argued to be insufficient and not in compliance with such method. Counsel relied on Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh24 to argue that the question of confirmation bias in this regard cannot be ruled out, given that the prints of the accused were not anonymised while providing such information to the expert analysing the fingerprints.

62. The AAG emphasized that the report of the fingerprint expert (Ex. P84) dated 11.07.2011 by PW-24 K.K. Trivedi, fully supported the prosecution. It established that four fingerprints could be developed and compared with chance fingerprints found at the crime scene. The report clearly stated that two fingerprints lifted from the site (A and B) matched with the sample fingerprint of Rahul; fingerprint D matched with the fingerprint of Manoj and fingerprint E matched with the fingerprint of Neha. PW-17 Satyanarayan Patel had photographed the crime scene, including the spots where prints were collected, which corroborated beyond any doubt, that the appellants were present at the crime scene.

116. Fingerprints collected at a crime scene from all personnel who were at the scene and who might have inadvertently touched physical evidence, are known as ‘elimination prints’. In the present case, elimination prints of the deceased were obtained on 20.06.2021; they were part of the record. The record would show that PW-3, PW-5, PW-9 were present at the crime scene, but admittedly their fingerprints were not obtained. It appears from the testimony of PW-9 that initially, the witnesses were asked to be outside, but later, asked to join the proceedings, to witness the seizures made. All the three witnesses, consistently deposed regarding fingerprint experts’ visit to the site, the use of powder on the surfaces and lifting of fingerprints. PW-5, in cross examination said that his fingerprint was not obtained. During hearing, counsel for the appellants had repeatedly emphasized that elimination prints were not taken from others 38 (2019) 3 SCC 770 present at the crime scene; they also highlighted that fingerprint were not lifted from the knives, pistol and ornaments seized from the accused. In the opinion of this court, nothing material turns on this aspect. In a recent judgment - which the appellants relied on-, i.e. Hari Om @ Hero v State of UP 39 this court acquitted the accused, on the ground that the fingerprint expert’s opinion, even if accepted, would could not have been the sole basis of conviction. What is important is whether the crime scene was secured, and whether the lifting of prints was witnessed. On both counts, the prosecution evidence is credible and worthy of acceptance. These are also corroborated by the testimony of PW-21, the Senior Scientific Officer, and the crime scene report dated 20.06.2021 (Ex. P77) tendered by him.