The Court noted that the report of the fingerprint expert relied on by the trial court report merely stated that on comparison, the chance print developed from the scene of crime is identical to the left ring finger impression of the accused.
This was inadequate for the trial court to have arrived at its finding, the Court said, as the developed chance print, the sample print, and the photographs should have been produced before the court.
“Further the specific similarities which persuades the expert to form an opinion, has to be detailed, for the Court to compare the prints and come to a conclusion. The procedure followed is grossly inadequate to inspire confidence of the court and the report is inadmissible in evidence,” the Court observed.
It concluded that the trial court erred in having relied on fingerprint evidence as an incriminating circumstance.
Source: Barandbench
