Fingerprint Evidence in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence: Admissibility, Constitutional Limits, and Evidentiary Weight

Fingerprint Evidence in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence: Admissibility, Constitutional Limits, and Evidentiary Weight

Abstract

The jurisprudence on fingerprint evidence in India has travelled from tentative judicial acceptance in the colonial era to its present status as a near-conclusive form of identification. This article analyses the statutory framework, constitutional limitations, and evolving case-law governing admissibility and probative value of fingerprint evidence. Drawing upon leading Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the discussion highlights procedural safeguards—particularly under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—necessary to preserve evidentiary integrity, and interrogates the doctrinal tension between investigative necessity and the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

1. Introduction

Fingerprints, premised on the uniqueness and permanence of epidermal ridge patterns, have long been deployed by investigative agencies worldwide. Indian courts routinely rely on fingerprint comparisons; yet convictions have faltered where investigative shortcuts compromised integrity or where constitutional protections were disregarded. The dual questions—can fingerprints be compelled, and how must they be proved—lie at the heart of contemporary discourse.

2. Statutory and Constitutional Framework

2.1 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 73 empowers a court to direct any person present to provide specimen writings or impressions “for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare” them with disputed material.[1] Although phrased broadly, the provision historically raised doubts about its applicability at the investigation stage, a controversy addressed in later case-law.

2.2 Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920

  • Section 3 – Permits taking of measurements, including fingerprints, of convicted persons.
  • Section 4 – Extends the power to arrested (but not yet convicted) persons for offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment.
  • Section 5 – Authorises a Magistrate to order any person—including an accused—to give measurements or photographs “if satisfied that it is expedient for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding”.[2]

2.3 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 293 and the older Section 510 (pre-1973 Code) facilitate reception of scientific reports, including those of Fingerprint Bureau Directors, without formal proof, while still allowing the court to summon the expert for cross-examination.[3]

2.4 Article 20(3) of the Constitution

The privilege against self-incrimination—“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”—casts a constitutional shadow on compelled specimen impressions.[4]

3. Jurisprudential Evolution

3.1 From Privy Council to Early Supreme Court

In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949), the Privy Council underscored the need for corroboration when relying on accomplice evidence but accepted physical exhibits such as fingerprints where proven.[5] Post-Independence, Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1971) reiterated that fingerprint identification had achieved “a stage of exactitude”, validating convictions supported by Bureau reports.[6]

3.2 Article 20(3) Clarified: Kathi Kalu Oghad

The eleven-judge Bench in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad held that compulsion to give fingerprints is not “testimonial” and therefore falls outside Article 20(3).[7] The Court distinguished physical/material evidence from communicative testimony, paving the way for routine judicial directions under Section 73.

3.3 Scope of Section 73: Pali Ram & Ram Babu Misra

In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram, the Supreme Court upheld a Magistrate’s order requiring specimen writings under Section 73, affirming that the power serves the court’s own comparison and is not fettered by investigation/trial dichotomies.[8] Yet, in State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra (1980), the Court—interpreting the same provision—found that a Magistrate lacked competence to direct specimens at the investigation stage, recommending legislative clarification on the analogy of Section 5 of the 1920 Act.[9] The apparent inconsistency was later harmonised by according primacy to Section 5 orders during investigation while preserving Section 73 for courts seised of proceedings.

3.4 Procedural Scrutiny and Chain of Custody

Subsequent jurisprudence emphasised evidentiary integrity. In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court doubted fingerprint slips not taken before a Magistrate, cautioning against possible fabrication.[10] Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014) and Sonvir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) overturned convictions where prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody or produce positive photographic enlargements for judicial comparison.[11]

4. Key Doctrinal Issues

4.1 Compulsion, Voluntariness, and Article 20(3)

While Kathi Kalu Oghad treats fingerprinting as non-testimonial, later cases caution that compulsion must not be accompanied by coercion or oppressive conduct. Courts demand that impressions be taken in accordance with law. A Section 5 order by a Magistrate, preceded by reasons of expediency, is viewed as a constitutional safeguard ensuring judicial oversight.

4.2 Stage of Proceedings and Competent Authority

  • Investigation Stage: Police may invoke Section 4 (1920 Act) but best practice—endorsed in Mohd. Aman and Sonvir—is to secure a Magistrate’s direction under Section 5 to dispel allegations of mala fides.
  • Trial Stage: Courts can act su motu under Section 73, as clarified in Pali Ram.

4.3 Evidentiary Weight and Need for Corroboration

Although fingerprint science enjoys high reliability, courts insist upon:

  1. Production of original or enlarged photographs with ridge characteristics marked, enabling judicial comparison (Sitaram Rajput).[12]
  2. Examination of the photographer and the lifting officer to prove origin (Manepalli Anjaneyulu).[13]
  3. Proof of an unimpeachable chain of custody (Prakash; Sonvir).

4.4 Reports under CrPC Section 293

A Bureau report is admissible per se, yet either side may insist on summoning the expert. Failure to do so bars later challenge (Phool Kumar). However, appellate courts have set aside convictions where the report lacked analytical reasoning (Registrar General v. Harish).[14]

5. Best-Practice Protocol for Investigators and Courts

  • Obtain a Section 5 order where practicable when taking fingerprints of an arrested suspect.
  • Record the entire lifting process videographically; secure the scene until forensic teams arrive.
  • Use powder/lifting tape techniques compliant with Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) guidelines; immediately seal and label exhibits.
  • Prepare scale photographs and enlarged prints with at least 8–12 ridge-character similarities marked.
  • Maintain a documented chain-of-custody log; produce the photographer and lifting officer at trial.
  • Court to exercise its own comparison under Section 73 only after expert testimony and visual aids are on record.

6. Comparative Perspective

While DNA profiling offers higher discriminatory power, fingerprint evidence remains cost-effective and swift. Indian statutes are yet to enact a comprehensive “Forensic Procedures Act”; pending bills (e.g., the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022) propose widening the ambit of permissible measurements, raising fresh Article 20(3) debates.

7. Conclusion

Fingerprint evidence occupies a pivotal place in Indian criminal trials, balancing scientific exactitude against procedural and constitutional safeguards. The Supreme Court’s trajectory—from Kathi Kalu Oghad to Sonvir—reveals an ethos of cautious admissibility: courts welcome reliable science but repudiate shortcuts that erode fair-trial guarantees. Legislative refinement paralleling Section 5’s safeguard, coupled with rigorous training of investigators, will further consolidate the probative force of this venerable forensic tool.

Footnotes

  1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 73.
  2. Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, ss. 3–5.
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 293; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (old), s. 510.
  4. Constitution of India, art. 20(3).
  5. Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, 1949 AIR PC 257.
  6. Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249.
  7. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
  8. State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158.
  9. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, (1980) SCC (Cri) 444.
  10. Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44.
  11. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2014) AIR SCW 2354; Sonvir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24.
  12. The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput, 1977 MPLJ note.
  13. Manepalli Anjaneyulu v. State of A.P., 1999 Crl LJ 4375 (AP).
  14. The Registrar General v. Harish, ILR 2017 KAR (Indicated).