Opinion of Expert
It has been proved that Fingerprint science is a scientific method of identification , its permanency
and individuality/uniqueness are its special characteristics. Opinion of expert in fingerprints has
the same value as that of opinion of any other expert. In fact it can be said that the other evidence
in which expert have to give opinion is not that good as fingerprint evidence. Its value has been increased tremendously by the fact that any individual when he touches or picks upon object is
apt to leave his fingerprint on them and these fingerprints can be developed and brought to the court. Several Indian Court rulings which proved and strength the finger print science are given as-----
Bhaluka behra & others Vs.state
Finger prints science has developed to a stage of exactitude but main thing is to be scrutinizing of the expert's examination and it is complete , through and scientific " the court also said that
"It cannot refuse to convict a person on the opinion of expert (fingerprint) , merely on the ground that it is unsafe to base a conviction upon such evidence. "
High court ruling of MP 1978 - Court said that "If we kept photographic enlargement side by side and their markings compared, it is very easy to follow the (report) opinion of expert about the points similarities and the his positive conclusion. "
State of Bombay Vs Kathikalu Oghad - A thumb impression of an accused taken by the police in course of investigation which was later on produced at the trial did not amount testimonial compulsion under article 20(3) and was not on that account inadmissible. It held that the application of fingerprints in the identification of persons does not violate the fundamental rights under article 20(3) of the constitution. It was further held that to be a witness in its wider sense means giving an oral or written statement but does not amount to exposing a part of the body for the purpose of identification.
In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab - The appellant arrested for a murder. In this case the statement of a witness (mother of the deceased) contains a different version on injury sustained by deceased and her statement contained her thumb impression. In his report the opinion of expert was that the thumb impression was not of the mother of deceased but of a different person. The Supreme Court said in this case that fingerprint science of identifying finger impressions , reached an exactitude and it does not have any mistake or doubt.
In James v. State of Kerala ,' In this case fingerprints and footprints were found from the scene of crime. But the prints were blurred and dirty. The forensic expert took the photographs and identified the similar points that are identical with that of accused's fingerprints. It was held by the Kerala High Court that even if the fingerprints are blurred or dirty it is for the court to decide whether the evidence is reliable or not. Fingerprint evidence is admitted on the basis that no two individuals have identical prints.
The probability of the existence of two identical fingerprint pattern in the world population is practically nil. The court must be very careful not to delegate its authority to a third party. The court first satisfy itself as to the value of the evidence. The court must ascertained itself about the expert's examination whether it is thorough, complete and scientific.
In Re Godavarthy Bhashya Karu Charyalu - High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that it is duty of the court to scrutinize the expert evidence must be scrutinize by court after examining the reasons given by the expert for his conclusions.
In Murarilal v. State of M. P - The appellant was having charge of committed murder. Fingerprints of the accused as well as a note having his handwriting was recovered from the crime scene. In opinion of expert it was found that handwriting as well as fingerprints were identical and similar with that of the accused. The Supreme Court held that corroboration was not required in fingerprints evidence because it had reached a stage of perfection and there was no possibility of an incorrect opinion.
In Pathumma v. Veerasha - High Court of Kerala observed that no two individuals have the same finger impressions and if no difference can be drawn between them , the conclusion is that they are produced by the same person.
Some Indian courts have contrary view.
In Gopal Chandra Mahanta v. State of Assam - High Court of Gauhati said that to convict a person without any corroboration solely and entirely on report of points of similarity of fingerprints is unsafe.
In Chandran v. State of Kerala - The case was of committing robbery and murder. Fingerprints obtained from crime scene are matched with appellants/accused fingerprints. The appellants said that there fingerprint were forcefully taken on the objects. The opinion of expert did not accepted by the Supreme court as the Court felt that the fingerprints were taken forcefully and under compulsion and held that it was highly hazardous to rely upon such evidence.
Mahmood v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 69 Accused fingerprint were found on the handle of the gandasa, which was lying near the dead body at the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that even if the gandasa has the fingerprints of the appellant, the conclusion will not be taken that the fingerprint is that of the appellant, unless it is formally proved. The expert did not give any reasons for his conclusions in that case. Therefore the Court did not accept the fingerprint evidence and it was considered as a fragile and shaky ground for conviction.
In State v. Karugope, 129 the Patna High Court accepted fingerprint expert report and considered it as an evidence for upholding the conviction of the accused. The Court only remarked that the expert must give reasons for the opinion expressed by him on his report. The Court held that if the reports of fingerprint evidence contain reasons it will help the court to clarity the ideas.
Phool Kumar v/s. Delhi Administration - A case of robbery . The evidence was a thumb impression on the cashbook. The finger print expert match the impression with the appellant on his report. The opinion of expert was accepted without examining him in the court. The Court also did not summon the expert as there was no application from either side. Supreme Court sustained the conviction of the High Court.
Mandrup Mahto v. State of Rajasthan - High Court of Rajasthan held that when ridge characteristics are large in number, then they serve the purpose of identification even if the ridges can not be counted from Core to Delta.
Malkit Singh v/s State of Punjab - On the glass of liquor fingerprints of accused were found .The Supreme Court said that Science of identifying the thumb impression is an exact science and beyond doubt.
In case of M.A. Antony v. State of Kerala (SC), The accused fingerprints were found in the house of deceased and presence of his hair on body of the deceased, the Supreme Court held the conviction proper. In this case the fingerprint was found identical and similar in the report. The report reveals that the comparison of the fingerprint was done with the fingerprint of the arrest slip. Apart from that this report says that there were 7 other fingerprints , five of which were unclear and two could not be tallied. This shows that there were strangers who entered the premises for the commission of offence. The accused admittedly visited the house several times and definitely on 5.1.2001 and 6.1.2001.The specimen fingerprint ought to have been taken before the judicial magistrate as per identification of Prisoners Act and this procedure having not been followed, no reliance could be placed on these circumstances as held by this Court in Mohd. Aman and Another v. State of Rajasthan.
In all these cases discussed above the opinion of expert were accepted and fingerprints science upheld that its an exact science without any doubt .
MR. DEEPAK PAWAR has been working as Finger Print Expert / Police Officer in Finger Print Bureau , Delhi Police at New Delhi since 2001 . He is the senior most Finger Print Expert , attending / visited several scene of crime and solved many crime cases .He has passed M.Sc (Chemistry) and he is the Member of International Association of Identification . He is the Member of Delhi Police welfare association . He is supervising the Forensic , New Delhi District , Mobile Crime Team . He is one of the Expert in the Special Investigation Team held for investigation of important cases . He has been giving fingerprint proficient training to Delhi Police personnel's . He has been Presented / giving lectures on topics related to forensic science . He is also making examination paper of Finger Print proficient course . He is awarded with Police Medal by MHA and Delhi Police.