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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more