Fingerprint Evidence in an Indian Court

In one line

A fingerprint identification is worth nothing unless the prosecution can prove where the print came from.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the opinion of a fingerprint expert is a relevant fact under section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which names the identity of finger impressions expressly; the report of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau may be used as evidence under section 329(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 without his being called, and under the second proviso to section 330 he is called only if a party disputes the report; specimen impressions may be ordered by a Magistrate of the first class under section 349; section 72(3) of the Adhiniyam permits the court itself to compare finger impressions; and the evidence is destroyed not by any scientific objection but by a failure to prove the chain of custody, as Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan shows.

The statutory route

Section 39(1) of the Adhiniyam. Where the Court has to form an opinion as to the identity of finger impressions, the opinion of a person specially skilled in that question is a relevant fact. The subject is named in the section itself, so there has never been any doubt about admissibility.

Section 329(4)(c) of the Sanhita. The Director of the Finger Print Bureau is a Government scientific expert, so his report may be used as evidence, subject to the Court's power to summon him.

Section 330, second proviso. No expert is called unless his report is disputed by a party, and the dispute must be raised within thirty days of supply.

Section 349 of the Sanhita. A Magistrate of the first class may order any person, including an accused, to give specimen finger impressions, subject to the arrest condition and its proviso. This is new in 2023; section 311A of the old Code covered signatures and handwriting only.

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. Finger, palm and foot impressions are measurements which a police officer or prison officer may take from a convicted person, a person ordered to give security, an arrested person or a preventive detenu, and refusal is deemed an offence.

Section 72(3) of the Adhiniyam. The court's own comparison power applies, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions. In practice a court is very reluctant to use it, for the reasons that apply to handwriting.

The constitutional foundation

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad.

Facts. A group of appeals raising one question. Accused persons had been required to give specimen handwriting, signatures and impressions of thumb, fingers, palm or foot, some to the investigating officer and some under orders of a court, and statements had been received under section 27 of the Evidence Act from persons in police custody. It was argued that this compelled a person accused of an offence to be a witness against himself contrary to article 20(3), and that custody was itself compulsion.