Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As has been stated, the bundle of currency notes, which was recovered at the instance of the respondent contained the hundred rupee currency note (Ex. P. 10) No. AD 53007632 with fingerprints thereon. The High Court rejected that important piece of evidence on the ground that Balbir Singh (P. W. 7) did not state that the currency note had fingerprints, it was not explained why the currency note was not sent to the Finger Print Bureau immediately why it was sent there after the arrest of the respondent alongwith his specimen impressions, and also because there was no proof that the specimen fingerprint impressions were of the respondent and there was no evidence to show on what date they were taken. The High Court has once again made a reference to the statement of the respondent under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Police took his fingerprint impressions on the currency note while be was in police custody, and rejected the report (Ex. P. BB) of the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. We have gone through the statement of Balbir Singh (P.W. 7) and we find that he has clearly stated that "one currency note contains fingerprint marks". The High Court therefore misread the evidence in this respect also. The other reason about not sending the currency note to the Finger Print Bureau until after the arrest of the respondent, is equally untenable because the High Court lost sight of the fact that the currency note was recovered on June 23, 1974, only after the arrest of the respondent, and there was nothing wrong if it was sent alongwith his specimen fingerprints which had necessarily to be obtained by making an application to a magistrate.

As regards the recovery of Rs. 4142/-, all that the respondent could contend was that after his arrest the Sub- Inspector asked his relations to give him Rs. 4000/- on the pretext that he would get him discharged from the case, and that his relations contributed the amount and handed it over to the Sub-Inspector who later on "foisted the amount on me to implicate me falsely in this case." Apart from the fact that the respondent has not led any evidence to prove his contention, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond doubt that the hundred rupee currency note No. AD 53007632, which was on the top of all the currency notes which were recovered at the instance of the respondent, bore fingerprints at least one of which has been found to be of the respondent and of no one else. We have given our reasons for rejecting the statement of the respondent that the police got his finger impression on the currency not,.- while he was in custody at the police station. The respondent was an educated man who was employed as the Secretary of the local Co-operative Society and who had an influential maternal uncle. The, police could not therefore have obtained his fingerprints in the manner alleged by him and the respondent would have resisted, any such attempt to create irrebuttable evidence against him of a serious charge, like murder and he or his uncle would have exposed it immediately.

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.