FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION

                                                   “WE ALL ARE UNIQUE”

 We touch things every day : a car door ,a coffee mug, a computer keyboard etc. Each time we do, it is likely that we leave behind our unique signature in the form of fingerprints. Fingerprints is a unique identification of every individual. It consist of friction ridges. Even the twins have different fingerprints but same DNA. Basically these fingerprints are used to find a accused and helps to spot a person on the crime scene. In the absence of DNA, fingerprint are used to identify  victim, witness and suspects etc. This uniqueness allows fingerprints to be used in all sort of ways, including for background check , biometric security, and in criminal situations. Fingerprint identification helps in the investigation link one crime scene to another. Fingerprint analysis  has been used to identify suspects and solve crimes for more than 100 years, and it remains an extremely valuable  toll for law enforcement. The most important things it helps investigators to track a criminal’s record , their pervious arrests and many more. Fingerprints are especially important in the criminal justice realm. Investigation and analysis can compare unknow prints collected from the crime scene to know the print of victims, witness and many suspects.

• For example : A bank robber’s fingerprints may be found on bank locker, bank locker’s keys or may be found on robbery note.
• A killer may leave murder weapon on the crime scene and their fingerprints on suspected murder weapon
• A thief’s fingerprint may be found on safe.
• A burglar may leave fingerprints on a broken window pane.

 The first fingerprint bureau was established in Kolkata , India .Fingerprint identification is also know as dactyloscopy or hand print identification . This concept is found by Henry Faulds. Fingerprint for identification of criminals was first used At Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1892, Inspector Eduardo Alvarez made the first criminal fingerprint identification. He was able to identify Francisca Rojas, a woman who murdered her two sons and cut her own throat in an attempt to place blame on another.

The Indian famous case which is solved through fingerprint identification:

Case law: Santosh Kumar Singh Verus state through CBI ( Priyadarshini mattoo case)

Facts:

• Priyadarshini Matto was found raped and murdered at her house in New Delhi on 23.01.1996
• She had lodged several complaints of harassment, intimidation and stalking against the accused Santosh Kumar Singh Who also a student of LLB in campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
• Despite the earlier two undertakings given by the accused subsequent to the complaints registered against him by the deceased at the R.K Puram and Vasant Kunj police station on 25.02.1995 and 16.08.1995 respectively, on 06.11.1995, he again tried to harass the deceased at the Campus Law Center. After this an FIR under section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)1860 was lodged against him.
• On the day of the murder when the deceased was alone at her residence, the accused, Vasant Kunj came at her house. On the arrivalof the security guard Rajinder  Singh at the deceased’s residence it was found that priyadarshini matto was lying under the double bed and there was no movement of her body.
• Further FIR was lodged under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at his instance at the police station of Vasant Kunj.

Santosh Singh Kumar found guilty only with the help of fingerprint identification. On Priyadarshini body they found fingerprint of Santosh Kumar Singh.

Fingerprint can be found on practically any solid surface, including the human body. Latent prints (invisible prints) are formed when the body’s natural oils and sweat on the skin are deposited onto another surface. Latent prints can be found on a variety of surfaces; however they are not readily visible and detection often requires the use of fingerprint powder, alternate light sources.                     Patent prints (visible prints) are formed when blood, dirt, ink, paint etc is transferred from a finger or thumb to a surface.

Fingerprint identification in Judiciary

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains provision wherein fingerprints are considered as valid piece of evidence. Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 says that when the courts has to form an opinion on a point of law which include foreign law, science or art, handwriting, finger impression, the opinion of person skilled in that particular area will be accepted. Originally the term finger impression was not included in the section. The amendment act of 1899, added the phrase finger impression. This was the result of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in R. V. Fakir, wherein it was held that the comparison of thumb impression must be made by the court itself and that  the opinion of an expert was not admissible under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. So this section says that an expert in fingerprint science can be called by the court to form an opinion.

Another section that included the scope of finger impression is Section 73of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The phrase finger impressions were also added to this section by the Amendment Act of 1899. The section contains two parts. The first part of the section provides for the comparison of signature, writing or finger impression purporting to have been written or made by a person with others admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by the same person. Even though the section does not specifically say by whom comparison has to be made, by reading Sections 45 and 73, it can be said the comparison is to be done by an expert. The second part of the section empowers the court to direct any person present in the court to give his specimen writing or finger impression for the purpose of enabling the court to compare it with others alleged to have been written or made by him. Section 73 can be said to be an enabling provision under which the court may direct any person present in court to give finger impression. While reading Section 73 in the light of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

it is clear that the court can direct an accused appearing before it to give his finger impression to be compared by the fingerprint expert chosen or approved by the court.

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973   

 Section 293 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert for examination or analysis and report in the causes of any proceedings under this code, may be used an evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code”. The report of the Director of the Fingerprint Bureau, which shows that his opinion, based on his observations and which leads to a conclusion is accepted as evidence. This section is intended to save time and avoids needless examination of experts unless the courts find it necessary to examine them or when the accused requests for the examination of such expert. If there is any doubt arising from the report the court can always summon the persons who have made the report. This section has included the report of the Director of Fingerprint Bureau for increasing the importance and also giving statutory recognition to the fingerprint evidence.

 Fingerprints and Right against Self-incrimination

One of the major issue that relates to fingerprint evidence is that of self incrimination. Whether taking of finger impressions from an accused amounts to self-incrimination has been put to considerable debate. The constitutional prohibition is designed to defend justice and ensure the accused against self created criminal traps. A comparitive analysis of the constitutional framework in this regard may be useful.

In India initially the application of the doctrine of self-incrimination was limited only to orally compelled testimony. Before the commencement of the Constitution, the accused in criminal proceedings was not a competent or compellable witness for or against himself. The Indian law as regards self incrimination continued to be the same as the English common law with regard to the production of documents but was modified as regards witnesses by compelling them to answer incriminating questions and giving them immunity from prosecution based on their answers.

Case law: State of Bomaby VS Kathi Kalu Oghad ( AIR 1961 SC 1808)

       In this case Supreme Court held that any specimen writing, signature, thumb impression or any finger print is not treated as a evidence against accused and no person can refuse to give specimen writing, signature or any fingerprint which help in solving the case. This is not against the self incrimination. In the case of fingerprint or thumb impression no person can protect his or her under Article 20(3). Article 20(3) provides protection against self incrimination but not in the case of specimen writing, thumb impression, signature or fingerprint. All these not included in the expression ‘ to be a witness’.

Case Law: Nandini Satpath VS P.L Dani (1978 AIR 1025, 1978 SCR (3) 608)

     Nandini Satpathy (former Chief Minister of Orissa) against whom a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was asked to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Vigilance] for questioning. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving her a string of questions in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire, on the grounds that it was a violation of her fundamental right against self-incrimination. The police insisted that she must answer their questions and booked her under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for refusing to answer any question asked by a public servant authorised to ask that question. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nandini Satpathy had a right to silence and whether people can refuse to answer questions during investigation that would point towards their guilty.

 Supreme observations: Article 20 (3) of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against her/himself.
The Supreme Court accepted that there is a rivalry between societal interest in crime detection and the constitutional rights of an accused person. They admitted that the police had a difficult job to do especially when crimes were growing and criminals were outwitting detectives. Despite this, the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution is of utmost importance, the Court said. In the interest of protecting these rights, we cannot afford to write off fear of police torture leading to forced self incrimination.
While any statement given freely and voluntarily by an accused person is admissible and even invaluable to an investigation, use of pressure whether? subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect but sufficiently substantial? by the police to get information is not permitted as it violates the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused has a right to silence during interrogation if the answer exposes her/him into admitting guilt in either the case under investigation or in any other offence. They pointed out that ground realities were such that a police officer is a commanding and authoritative figure and therefore, clearly in a position to exercise influence over the accused.

Signature, thumb impression or any fingerprint cannot include in the category of witness so that in these type of case no person can take protection under Article 20(3).This is not against the self incrimination.

Conclusion 

Fingerprint identification is a very important invention which helps the legal experts to solve many such crimes which were not possible to solve before as no evidence were present. These inventions saved many lives. We should thank science which is very useful for public at large because there are many examples present with us which shows that it really helped the common person. Courts have accepted the reliability of fingerprint testing and included fingerprint identification results as evidence. The fingerprint evidence in the court of Law can punish or acquit a suspect. However, the accuracy of the technique has been challenged. This is one example of how scientific technology has reached the common man. It helps to resolve paternity cases, and is useful in identification, crime investigations.