'Chance Fingerprints' Tallying With Theft Accused Not Reliable When Spot & Manner Of Lifting Fingerprint Not Disclosed: Karnataka HC Orders Acquittal

A single judge bench of Justice Dr HB Prabhakara Sastry made the observation while setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (confirmed by the sessions court), holding the petitioner Thippeswamy @ Kunta guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 (house-breaking by night) and 380 (theft in dwelling house) of the Indian Penal Code.

"In a criminal case, where it is purely based upon the circumstantial evidence every link of the chain of events is required to be established by the prosecution. The absence of linkage of major events like alleged recovery and matching of fingerprints leave a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution."

The Petitioner was accused of breaking into the complainant's house during night and committing theft of silver articles and cash. He was nabbed after the Police conducted a raid and recovered several of the stolen articles from his possession, including the one of the articles which was stolen from the complainant's house.

In the instant revision petition, the Petitioner argued that the prosecution could not prove that the alleged recovery was made at his instance. Further, he submitted that mere tallying of a 'Chance Fingerprint' cannot be the sole basis for his conviction.

The prosecution on the other hand argued that the recovery of the articles at the instance of the Petitioner-accused has been established. It was further contended that the Petitioner failed to give any explanation as to how come the stolen articles came into his possession. Furthermore, the Fingerprints recovered from the spot would scientifically establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime.

Findings:

At the outset, the Court noted that the investigating officer had nowhere in his evidence stated as to who had summoned Forensic Testing Personnel to the spot to search for 'Chance Fingerprints' and to collect them. He also did not disclose as to who lifted the 'Chance Fingerprints' and from which particular location of the spot and in what manner.

"Thus, there are no details as to the manner and method adopted in identifying the 'Chance Fingerprints' and method of collecting the 'Chance Fingerprints' and the source from where the alleged 'Chance Fingerprints' were collected," it noted.

It added that when the very collection of the 'Chance Fingerprints' itself is not safe to believe, its further development or enlarging and comparison with accused's thumb prints would fade to the background.

"Neither PW-5 - Investigating Officer nor PW-6 - Fingerprint expert, has, anywhere, stated as to from which spot or from which article the 'Chance Fingerprint' was lifted, and by whom and in what manner. The person who is said to have lifted the Fingerprint was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The alleged 'Chance Fingerprint' and also the article from which it might have been lifted also have not been produced before the Court. In such a circumstance, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the Fingerprint expert that the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him for examination was corresponding to the fingerprint of the accused and proceeding to convict the accused."

The Court went on to observe that in cases like the instant one, when there are several "gaps" in the case of the prosecution as to the description of the place and the article from which the fingerprint was lifted, as to who lifted the Fingerprint, as to the manner adopted in lifting the fingerprints and also in the absence of seizing and producing the article from which the Fingerprint was said to have been lifted, the same would make it unsafe to rely upon the report given upon the examination of such an alleged Fingerprint by the Fingerprint expert.

The court also raised doubts over the prosecution contention of the recovery of the stolen articles at the behest of the accused. It said, "The alleged recovery is also not established by the prosecution."

Finally it opined, "The absence of linkage of major events like alleged recovery and matching of fingerprints leave a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution. In such a case, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offences."

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012

Citation; 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248

Date of Order: 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

Appearance: Advocate C.N. Raju, for petitioner; HCGP K. Nageshwarappa for R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order