Fingerprints of the Accused in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence

The Evidentiary Value and Procedural Safeguards Concerning Fingerprints of the Accused in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence

Introduction

Fingerprint evidence has long been recognized as a cornerstone of forensic science, playing a pivotal role in criminal investigations and prosecutions worldwide. In India, the unique and immutable nature of fingerprints renders them a significant tool for establishing the identity of individuals, including those accused of committing offences. The legal framework governing the collection, examination, and admissibility of an accused's fingerprints is multifaceted, drawing from statutory law, constitutional provisions, and judicial pronouncements. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles, procedural requirements, and judicial interpretation surrounding the use of fingerprint evidence pertaining to accused persons within the Indian criminal justice system. It will delve into the interplay between the probative value of such evidence and the imperative to safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination.

Legal Framework for Fingerprint Evidence in India

The collection and use of fingerprints of accused persons in India are primarily governed by a combination of specific legislation and general evidentiary and constitutional principles.

The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920

This Act is the principal legislation authorizing the taking of "measurements," which include fingerprints and footprint impressions,1 of accused and convicted persons. Key provisions include:

  • Section 3: Empowers a police officer to take measurements of any person convicted of certain offences, or ordered to give security for good behaviour.
  • Section 4: Allows a police officer to take measurements of any person arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, or any person ordered to give security. Resistance to the taking of measurements is deemed an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2
  • Section 5: Grants a Magistrate the power to order any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken if the Magistrate is satisfied that it is expedient for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This provision is frequently invoked to ensure judicial oversight and lend credibility to the process.3
  • Section 6: Stipulates that resistance or refusal to allow the taking of measurements under the Act shall be deemed an offence under Section 186 of the IPC.
  • Section 7: Provides for the destruction of all photographs and records of measurements of a person who has not been previously convicted, upon their release without trial or discharge or acquittal.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The admissibility and relevance of fingerprint evidence are governed by the general principles of the Evidence Act:

  • Section 9: Makes relevant facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant. Fingerprint evidence is crucial for establishing identity.
  • Section 45: Allows the opinions of experts, including those specially skilled in fingerprint science, to be considered as relevant facts. The report of a fingerprint expert is admissible as expert opinion.4
  • Section 73: Permits the court to direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. While primarily for handwriting and signatures, its principle of comparison by the court is relevant, and it was amended to include thumb impressions.5 The Supreme Court in State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, while dealing with specimen handwriting, noted the absence of power for a Magistrate to direct an accused to give specimen handwriting during investigation (a lacuna later addressed by Section 311A CrPC), but implicitly acknowledged the existing framework for fingerprints under the Identification of Prisoners Act.6

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Certain CrPC provisions are also pertinent:

  • Section 293: Deals with reports of certain Government scientific experts, including the Director of a Finger Print Bureau. Such reports may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, and the court may summon and examine the expert if it deems fit.7

The Constitution of India

The most significant constitutional provision in this context is:

  • Article 20(3): "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The interpretation of this right in relation to fingerprint evidence is crucial and has been settled by landmark judgments.

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Fingerprint Evidence

Fingerprint evidence is generally considered highly reliable due to the unique and persistent nature of friction ridge patterns.

Scientific Basis and Reliability

The science of fingerprint identification is well-established, and expert opinions on fingerprint comparison are admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash accepted expert testimony where more than 12 points of similarity were found without discordance.8 However, the court is not bound by the expert's opinion; it must satisfy itself as to the value of the evidence.9 The expert's report should detail the reasons for the conclusion, and courts often find it easier to assess the evidence when enlarged photographs with marked points of similarity are provided.10

Corroboration

While fingerprint evidence is strong, the question of whether a conviction can be based solely on it has been debated. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others noted that a majority of High Courts found it not unsafe to convict on uncorroborated testimony of a fingerprint expert, but advocated a rule of caution.11 The Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, discussing expert evidence (though primarily handwriting), stated that expert opinion requires careful scrutiny but does not categorically necessitate corroboration if the expert's reasoning is sound and convincing.12 However, if fingerprint evidence is part of a larger body of circumstantial evidence, its strength is enhanced. Conversely, weak fingerprint evidence, or fingerprints found in circumstances that do not conclusively link the accused to the crime, may not be sufficient, especially if other evidence is lacking.13

Challenging Fingerprint Evidence

The defence can challenge fingerprint evidence on several grounds:

  • Chain of Custody: Any break in the chain of custody of the objects bearing chance prints or the specimen prints can render the evidence suspect.14
  • Lifting and Preservation: Improper techniques in lifting, developing, photographing, or preserving chance prints can compromise their integrity.15 In Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, the evidence was found wanting due to issues with a negative photograph and lack of linkage to the object.16
  • Explanation for Presence: If the accused can provide a legitimate explanation for the presence of their fingerprints at a scene or on an object (e.g., being a resident or employee), the incriminating value diminishes.17 However, the unexplained presence of an accused's fingerprints in a location relevant to the crime can be a strong incriminating circumstance.18

Procedural Safeguards in Obtaining Fingerprints of the Accused

While fingerprint evidence is valuable, its collection must adhere to legal and constitutional safeguards.

The Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))

A seminal issue was whether compelling an accused to provide fingerprints violated Article 20(3). The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, resolved this by holding that compelling an accused to give specimen handwriting, thumb impressions, or fingerprints does not amount to "being a witness against himself."19 The Court distinguished between testimonial compulsion (imparting personal knowledge) and the production of material evidence like fingerprints, which are for identification purposes. This position was reaffirmed in Selvi And Others v. State Of Karnataka, which, while holding involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and BEAP tests unconstitutional, explicitly stated that this does not affect the admissibility of evidence collected through means like fingerprinting, which fall outside the scope of "testimonial compulsion."20 The Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Anr. v. State also reiterated this principle.21

Role of the Magistrate (Section 5, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920)

Although police officers are empowered under Section 4 of the Act to take fingerprints of arrested persons under certain conditions,22 the judiciary has repeatedly emphasized the desirability of obtaining fingerprints under an order from a Magistrate as per Section 5. This is to "dispel any suspicion as to its bonafides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence."23 The Supreme Court in Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, citing Mohd. Aman, noted that if fingerprints were obtained "unwittingly and in what seems to be a deceitful manner," the appropriate course would have been to approach the Magistrate.24 Failure to obtain prints before a Magistrate, while not rendering them per se inadmissible if otherwise legally obtained, can cast doubt on their genuineness in certain circumstances.25

Procedure for Taking and Handling Prints

Proper procedure in taking and handling both chance prints and specimen prints is crucial. This includes meticulous documentation of who lifted/took the prints, when, where, and the methods used.26 The chain of custody for objects bearing chance prints and for the specimen prints themselves must be impeccably maintained to ensure they are untampered before comparison by the expert.27

Judicial Scrutiny of Fingerprint Evidence: Case Law Analysis

Indian courts have rigorously examined fingerprint evidence, balancing its utility with the rights of the accused.

Cases Upholding Fingerprint Evidence

In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, the Supreme Court accepted the fingerprint expert's opinion based on multiple points of similarity, overturning an acquittal.28 Similarly, in Sonvir Alias Somvir v. State (Nct Of Delhi), chance prints matching the accused's palm print were relied upon by the trial court and High Court.29 The unexplained presence of an accused's fingerprints on an almirah in the deceased's bedroom was considered incriminating in Munna Kumar Upadhyay Alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State Of Andhra Pradesh.30

Cases Highlighting Procedural Lapses or Insufficiency

Conversely, courts have been critical where procedural safeguards were flouted or the evidence was weak. In Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, lapses in establishing an untampered chain of custody for seized articles before examination by the Fingerprint Bureau, coupled with the fact that specimen fingerprints were taken multiple times without a Magistrate's order, contributed to the acquittal.31 In Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, the fingerprint evidence was deemed inconsequential due to issues with the photographic negative and lack of clarity on how a specimen print exhibit came into existence.32 The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Manepalli Anjaneyulu And Others v. State Of A.P found fingerprint evidence lacking sanctity where the photographer of chance prints was not examined, the photographs were not filed, and there was no clarity on who took the accused's prints and where.33 The Rajasthan High Court in Ganpat Singh & Narpat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan also cast doubt on fingerprint evidence where prints were not taken before or under the order of a Magistrate.34

Expert Testimony and Court's Role

The court must independently assess the expert's opinion. As held in The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others, the court cannot delegate its authority to the expert and must satisfy itself about the correctness of the conclusion, often aided by enlarged photographs and marked similarities.35 While Murari Lal suggests that well-reasoned expert opinion might not always need corroboration, prudence dictates careful scrutiny, especially in cases solely reliant on such evidence.36

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite its established role, the use of fingerprint evidence faces ongoing challenges. Ensuring strict adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly the preference for obtaining prints under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, remains critical to maintain public confidence and prevent allegations of fabrication.37 Continuous training of investigating officers in the scientific collection, preservation, and documentation of fingerprint evidence is essential. Furthermore, standardization in expert reporting, emphasizing detailed reasoning and clear demonstration of matching characteristics, will aid judicial assessment. The advent of digital fingerprinting and Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) presents new opportunities and challenges, requiring legal frameworks to keep pace with technological advancements while upholding due process.

Conclusion

Fingerprint evidence of the accused is a potent tool in the Indian criminal justice system, recognized for its scientific reliability and high probative value in establishing identity. Its admissibility is well-grounded in statutory law and is not barred by the constitutional right against self-incrimination, as clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad. However, its evidentiary weight is contingent upon meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards during collection, preservation, and examination. Judicial scrutiny focuses on the integrity of the chain of custody, the clarity and reasoning of expert opinion, and the overall circumstances of the case. The preference for obtaining fingerprints under the aegis of a Magistrate, as highlighted in numerous judgments, underscores the judiciary's concern for fairness and the prevention of potential misuse. Ultimately, the effective and just use of fingerprint evidence lies in a balanced approach that harnesses its scientific strength while rigorously upholding the fundamental rights of the accused, thereby reinforcing the principles of justice and due process in India.

References

  1. The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Section 2(a).
  2. Sapan Haldar & Anr. v. State (Delhi High Court, 2012), discussing Section 4 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
  3. Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44; Manoj Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015); Mahendra Singh And Anr v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015).
  4. Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 612; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249.
  5. The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1977), noting amendment to Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
  6. State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, (1980) SCC CRI 444.
  7. The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1977), referring to the precursor Section 510 of the old CrPC.
  8. Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249.
  9. The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1977).
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 612.
  13. MOHAMMAD RAFEEQ @ RAFEEQ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Karnataka High Court, 2022), citing Marappa @ Marappa Reddy -vs- State of Karnataka, 2015(4) KCCR 2946 (DB).
  14. Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44.
  15. Manepalli Anjaneyulu And Others (A-2 To A-7) v. State Of A.P, Rep. By Public Prosecutor (Complainant), (1999) SCC ONLINE AP 1093 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1999).
  16. Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, (2014) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  17. Munna Kumar Upadhyay Alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, (2012) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  18. Ibid.; Abhiram Rohidas And Others v. State Of Orissa (Orissa High Court, 2014).
  19. State Of Bombay . v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
  20. Selvi And Others v. State Of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 (SCC CR 3 1).
  21. Sapan Haldar & Anr. v. State (Delhi High Court, 2012).
  22. Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44.
  23. Ibid.; Manoj Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015); Mahendra Singh And Anr v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015).
  24. Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, (2014) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  25. Ganpat Singh & Narpat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, (2006) SCC ONLINE RAJ 574 (Rajasthan High Court, 2006).
  26. Manepalli Anjaneyulu And Others (A-2 To A-7) v. State Of A.P, Rep. By Public Prosecutor (Complainant), (1999) SCC ONLINE AP 1093 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1999).
  27. Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44.
  28. Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249.
  29. Sonvir Alias Somvir v. State (Nct Of Delhi), (2018) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  30. Munna Kumar Upadhyay Alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, (2012) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  31. Mohd. Aman And Another v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44.
  32. Prakash v. State Of Karnataka, (2014) SCC (Supreme Court Of India).
  33. Manepalli Anjaneyulu And Others (A-2 To A-7) v. State Of A.P, Rep. By Public Prosecutor (Complainant), (1999) SCC ONLINE AP 1093 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1999). See also DIVESH VAIDYA ALIAS MUKHIYA v. STATE OF HP (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2016) citing this case.
  34. Ganpat Singh & Narpat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, (2006) SCC ONLINE RAJ 574 (Rajasthan High Court, 2006).
  35. The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Rajput And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1977).
  36. Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 612.
  37. See discussions in Manoj Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015) and Mahendra Singh And Anr v. State Of Rajasthan Through P P (Rajasthan High Court, 2015).