Finger Print Examination - Unless there are sufficient number of clear ridges , comparison of finger prints not possible - -2015 Madaras (2014) msklawreports

the finger print expert had taken V1, V2, V3 and V6 from the trunk box and had taken photographs of them.  Of this, the chance finger print, V6, did not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge for comparison and therefore, it was excluded from comparison.-

The finger print expert (P.W.23), lifted the chance finger prints, viz., V1, V2, V3 and V6 from an iron trunk box and the chance finger prints marked as V4 and V5 on the wooden door.  He had lifted these finger prints on 18.12.2002 by visiting the scene of occurrence at the request of the investigating officer, P.W.24.  The chance finger prints did not tally with the finger prints of P.W.1, son of the deceased, on comparison.  Therefore, that was negatived.  As stated earlier, the finger print expert had taken V1, V2, V3 and V6 from the trunk box and had taken photographs of them.  Of this, the chance finger print, V6, did not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge for comparison and therefore, it was excluded from comparison.  Therefore, what remained was, V1, V2 and V3 lifted from the iron trunk box and V4 and V5 developed from the wooden door.  In his evidence and report, Ex.P-45,  P.W.23 has stated that the chance finger print, V1, tallies with the left thumb impression of one Jayapalan, S/o.Shanmugam of Athimoor village.  The chance finger prints, V2 and V3, were found to be identical with the right thumb impression and right index finger prints respectively of one Murugan, S/o.Mallappan of Polur.  The remaining chance finger prints, V4 and V5, found on the wooden frame of the door, were found to tally with the left middle finger print and left hand palm prints of one Bala @ Balasubramani, S/o.Chandran, of Raandam village. Though P.W.23 stated in his evidence that he had lifted finger prints, viz., V1, V2 and V3 from a trunk box in the house of the deceased, this piece of evidence stands negated by the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that, there was no trunk box in his house.  It is the definite case of the prosecution that the first accused and the deceased were good friends and that the first accused also had come to the house of the deceased.  In such circumstances, even if the chance finger prints, V1, V2 and V3 are found to be that of the first accused, it cannot lead to the inference that he was the offender when other evidence militates against such an inference.-2015 Madaras (2014) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)