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