Articles

Article Title: Critical analysis of Fingerprint under the criminal justice system in India
Date of Article: January 1, 1970

Critical analysis of Fingerprint under the criminal justice system in India

Dr. J. Starmi, ML.,PhD.,(Law)*

Abstract

Fingerprints have been the gold standard for personal identification within the forensic community for more than one hundred years. Fingerprints and finger marks combine to provide the most powerful means of personal identification available to police and courts. The basic patterns of fingerprints are loops, whorls and arches that can be found in fingerprints. The standard methodology used by fingerprint experts to conduct friction ridge examinations is called ACE-V, for analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification, which are the four fundamental phases utilized in this process. The recovered prints can be manually compared with known ante-mortem records or searched through an automated fingerprint system (AFIS) in order to verify or establish identity. In our criminal justice system thousand culprits can escape but one innocent could not be punished. Likewise we need to punish a culprit the charge framed against him need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In this aspect identification is needed to punish the culprit. Hence this fingerprint analysis give hand to find the real accused and safeguard the innocent could not to be punished.  Because each and every individual is differ from fingerprinting. Even identical twins, also comprise different fingerprinting. This fingerprinting analysis is scientifically accurate. This study focussed about the evolution of fingerprinting in India with the support of case laws.

Introduction

The science of fingerprint identification has evolved over time from early use of fingerprints to mark business transactions in ancient Babylonia to their use today as core technology in biometric security device and as scientific evidence in courts of law throughout the world. Fingerprints are the patterns formed by the raised papillary ridges on fingertips, which contain rows of pores that connect to sweat glands. After many years of research and study it has been established that papillary ridges on the fingers and palms of the hands, and the soles and toes of the feet, remain throughout life true to the mould in which they were fashioned by nature, unless their symmetry is permanently disturbed by some deep-seated injury[1] .  These ridges, which are formed during the first few months of fetal life, not only remains immutable during lifetime, but after death seem to have the peculiar property of outlasting every other recognizable feature of the body. Fingerprints and finger marks combine to provide the most powerful means of personal identification available to police and courts. How this became such a powerful tool arises from the realization that the patterns of ridge skin and their details are unique, immutable, universal, easy to classify, and leave marks on any object handled with bare hands. The understanding of the value of fingerprints led to research in detection techniques and to operational and strategic uses for fingerprints. Fingerprints form definite patterns that appear to have a general resemblance in shape and design. Their resemblance allowed fingerprint pioneer to device systems of classification for fingerprint patterns; now they allow practical use to be made of large collections of prints that can be filed according to definite scheme[2] .

Finger print-connote

Generally skin is one of the largest organs of the body. It is recognized as an organ because it consists of several types of tissues that function together. In addition, it includes millions of sensory receptors and an extensive vascular network. The skin is a protective, pliable covering of the body, one that is continuously replaced. The Integumentary System includes the skin and the epidermal derivatives of hair, nails and glands. Every human being has friction ridges located on the hands and feet. These friction ridges have a specific detail on the gripping surfaces with an enhanced quantity of nerves and pores. These tiny raised peaks and valleys are located on the tips of the fingers along with sweat pores. This gripping skin has been described as s Latent fingerprints result from small amounts of grease, sweat, and dirt being deposited on the object touched from every detail in the friction ridge pattern at the tip of the finger. Latent prints are developed using a variety of methods. One is the dusting of powders over the prints. Another method is using iodine since this discolors the print. Lasers may also be used to detect latent prints. The laser light has been discovered to produce florescent fingerprints which can be photographed[3].

Basics of fingerprinting

The use of fingerprints in forensic science is based on several fundamental principles. The first is that, the probability of finding two people with identical fingerprints is very small. In fact, no two identical fingerprints have ever been found same. Galton calculated that probability of finding identical prints was 1 in 64 millions. A second principle is that an individual’s fingerprints do not change with time. The pattern of ridges on a person’s fingertips, palms and soles at birth remains unchanged until death. Consequently, a detective can be certain that a criminal’s fingerprints will remain unchanged until death. Finally, there are enough similarities in the patterns of ridges on people’s fingers that can be classified. The basic patterns of fingerprints are loops, whorls and arches that can be found in fingerprints[4]. Detailed examination of the friction ridge skin also reveals that ridge path, in most instances, is not continuous across the entire surface of a finger. Some ridges, called ending ridges, will flow and abruptly come to an end, while other ridges, called dividing ridges or bifurcations, will flow and separate into two separate and distinct ridges. Additionally, some ridges are as long as they are wide and are called dots[5].

These ridge events are commonly referred to as characteristics or minutiae, and their spatial relationship to one another in a friction ridge impression is the basis for fingerprint comparison and identification. An arch has ridges that enter from one side of the pattern, make a wave in the middle, and pass out the opposite side from which they entered. In a whorl, the friction ridges tend to have a circular or spiral ridge flow. It is important for an examiner to note the ridge flow of a print for orientation purposes and the recognition of focal areas that will ultimately assist in the identification process. While pattern configuration alone cannot be used for individualization, it can be used for exclusionary decisions made by an examiner[6]. A known exemplar can be recorded using a number of standard techniques, to include black printer’s ink, inkless/chemical methods, and Live scan, which is a computer-based system that creates digital fingerprint images by scanning the fingers. Finally, a plastic print is an impression left in a malleable substrate, such as wax or putty, which retains an image of the friction ridge arrangement[7]. Recent studies have reported that females have a significantly higher ridge density than males[8].

Historical background of Fingerprinting:

Ancient World:

Fingerprint forensics has a future despite new technology and the folly of humans. Fingerprints have been used as a form of identification for millennia. But 125 years ago an Argentine statistician started an experiment that led to the first murder being solved with these unique markers. Juan Vucetich was a fingerprint researcher and statistician. Fingerprints were used on clay tablets for business transactions in ancient Babylon in 1000-2000 B.C. Thumbprints begin to be used on clay seals in China to “sign” documents in third century BCE. During the T’ang Dynasty, a time when imperial China was one of the most powerful and wealthy regions of the world, fingerprints are reportedly used on official documents, 610-907 AD. A Petroglyph that dates back to the first century AD, located on a cliff face in Nova Scotia depicts a hand with exaggerated ridges and finger whorls, presumably left by the Mi’kmaq people. Many official government documents in Persia have fingerprint impressions dating to 14^th century AD. One government physician observed that no two fingerprints were an exact match. In 1686, at the University of Bologna in Italy, a professor of anatomy named Marcello Malpighi noted the common characteristics of spirals, loops and ridges in fingerprints, using the newly invented microscope for his studies[9].  A thesis published in 1823 by Johannes Evengelista Purkinje, professor of anatomy with the University of Breslau, Prussia, details a full nine different fingerprint patterns. Still, like Malpighi, no mention was made of fingerprints as an individual identification method. There is evidence in China suggesting fingerprints were used for identification as early as 200-300 B.C., and in Japan from 702 A.D.

India:

India was perhaps one of the earliest nations to adopt finger printing as a crime establishing tool. In 1858, the Chief Magistrate of the Hooghly district in Jungipoor[10], India, Sir William Herschel[11], first used fingerprints to “sign” contracts with native Indians. As the locals felt more bound to a contract through this personal contact[12], Herschel adopted the practice permanently. Later, only the prints of the right index and middle fingers were required on contracts. In time, after viewing a number of fingerprints, Herschel noticed that no two prints were exactly alike, and he observed that even in widespread use, the fingerprints could be used for personal identification purposes. In 1896, British official Sir Edward Richard Henry in Bengal instituted a fingerprinting program for all prisoners. He also developed a system of his own, which included 1,024 primary classifications. Within a year, the Governor General signed a resolution directing that fingerprinting was to be the official method of identifying criminals in British India. In  Japan[13]  at 1880, grown by one Dr. Henry Faulds, a British surgeon and Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo, discussed fingerprints as a means of personal identification, and the use of printers ink as a method for obtaining such fingerprints[14].

United Kingdom

In 1888 Sir Francis Galton[15] began his study of fingerprints primarily to develop a tool for determining genetic history and hereditary traits. Galton became the first to provide scientific evidence that no two fingerprints are exactly the same, and that prints remain the same throughout a person’s lifetime. He calculated that the odds of finding two identical fingerprints were 1 in 64 billion. In 1892- Galton’s book “Fingerprints” was published, the first of its kind, which detailed the first classification system for fingerprints; he identified three types (loop, whorl, and arch) of characteristics for fingerprints (also known as minutia). These characteristics are to an extent still in use today, often referred to as Galton’s Details. In 1901 the “Henry Fingerprint Classification System” in India paved the way for founding Scotland Yard's Central Fingerprint Bureau.

USA

 In 1882 Gilbert Thompson[16], employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in New Mexico, used his own fingerprints on a document to guard against forgery. This was the first known use of fingerprints for identification in America. ‘Life on the Mississippi’, a novel by Mark Twain published in 1883, tells the story of a murderer who is identified by the use of fingerprints. In 1902, the New York Civil Service Commission, led by Dr. Henry P. DeForrest, instituted testing of the first systematic use of fingerprints in the United States. In 1903, the New York Police Department, the New York State Prison system and the Federal Bureau of Prisons began working with the new science. In 1904, the St. Louis Police Department and the Leavenworth State Penitentiary in Kansas started utilizing fingerprinting, assisted by a Sergeant from Scotland Yard who had been guarding the British Display at the St. Louis Exposition. In 1905, The US Army joined the fingerprinting bandwagon, and within three years was followed by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. In 1924, US Congress established the Identification Division of the FBI. By 1946, the F.B.I. had processed 100 million fingerprint cards; that doubled by 1971. From 1924 to the 1990s Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)[17], began widespread use around the country.

Legislations relating to Fingerprint Evidence in India

 In India this fingerprinting technology has played a vital role in identifying the real accused. Such procedure has admitted in India by various legislations.

Constitution of India

As long as there is no constitutional or statutory prohibition inhibiting the police from obtaining specimen handwritings and signatures from an accused, it cannot be stated that police is denuded of this power. The mere obtaining of specimen signatures or handwritings from the accused cannot by itself fasten any criminal liability, unlike a statement to a police officer which proprio vigour may mulct the suspect with criminal liability, unless it is sent to an expert to be compared with the disputed one and opinion obtained. The Supreme Court has very clearly held that giving of specimen signature and handwritings to the police will not amount to testimonial compulsion prohibited by Article 20(3)[18] of the Constitution of India[19]. Thus, there is no constitutional bar for the police to obtain specimen signatures or handwritings from an accused[20].

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

According to Section 293[21] CrPC states that a report submitted by Director, Finger Print Board as expert opinion may be used as evidence. The court may also, if it thinks fit, can issue summon and examine any such expert. Palm prints come within the purview of Section 45 Indian Evidence Act is admissible in court. Merely taking specimen handwriting does not amount to be giving a statement so as to be hit by Section 162 CrPC[22]. Section 311-A CrPC[23] is the only repository of the power to obtain signatures and handwriting from the accused during investigation, would amount to denuding a power which always existed with the police[24]. Section 311-A was introduced in the statute nearly 25 years, after the Supreme Court made a suggestion in State of  Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra[25].  

Indian Evidence Act

The evidence of finger print expert is admissible in trial before court of law under Section 45 and Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts. Such persons are called Experts[26]. The court may direct any person present in the court to give his finger prints, if the same is required for comparison with disputed finger print by the court[27]. Under Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act if oral evidence refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the persons who holds that opinion on those grounds.

Identification of Prisoners Act

According to Section 3[28] of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, the station house officers and investigating officers are empowered to take the finger prints of every convicted person of any offence. Any person can ordered to give security of his good behaviour under Section 118[29] CrPC shall, if so required, allow his measurements (including finger prints) and photographs to be taken by a Police Officer in the prescribed manner. Section 4[30] of Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 provides that the station house officers and investigating officers are empowered to take the finger prints of non-convicted persons who have been arrested in connection with an offence.  A Magistrate can direct any person of arrested to give the fingerprints for the purposes of any investigation mentioned under the Code of Criminal Procedure[31]and also direct to take the finger print of a person in the course of a criminal trial[32]. By way of Section 73 Indian Evidence Act and Section 5 and 6 of Identification of Prisoners Act, the law enforcing authorities and courts have been empowered to take finger prints of an arrested person for the purpose of investigation or identification. If any convict resists for giving finger prints, necessary measures should be to taken to secure his finger prints as per Section 6[33] of Identification of Prisoners Act. If he still refuses, adverse inference will be taken against him and he is liable to be punished under Section 186 of IPC[34].

Judicial Approach on Finger Print Evidence

Identification is based on fingerprinting is in such general and common use that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it. Such evidence may or may not be of independent strength, but is admissible, the same as other proof, as tending to make out a case. The general rule is that whatever tends to prove a material fact is relevant and competent[35]. It is reasonable deduction from experience that no two human beings have the same thumb markings[36]. The admissibility of fingerprint evidence by the courts is highlighted in the Thomas Herbert Castleton’s Case of England[37] decided in 1909, in which the Lord Chief Justice held that fingerprint evidence was admissible although it was the sole grounds of identification. In Parker v. The King[38], the Parker was convicted by means of fingerprints[39]. The first real recognition of fingerprints in the US was in the case of People v. Jennings[40], is considered one of the landmark cases on admissibility of fingerprint evidence and the court held that the fingerprints collected from the scene of crime were a conclusive match.

 In the case of, United States Shipping Board v. The Ship ‘St Albans’[41], it was observed ‘The witness must have made a special study or acquired a special experience therein. That is he must be skilled and have adequate knowledge of the subject’. It was held in Chitaman Dissil v. M.Lakshman[42] that, ‘the mere opportunity to see finger prints does not make one an expert. It is scientific study and outlook on the problem that is required for an expert.  In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab[43], it was held that, the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake. In Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore[44], it was held that the science of comparison of finger prints has developed to a stage of exactitude. In Bhaluka Behara and others v. State[45], it was held that, if the finger prints are clear enough the Court must verify the evidence of the expert by examining them with the collected a materials on spot, and applying its own mind to the similarities or dissimilarities afforded by the finger prints, before coming to a conclusion one way or the other[46].  But the main thing to be scrutinized is whether the Experts examination is thorough, complete and scientific. When the Experts appear on both sides, the Court cannot leave the matter merely by saying that it was difficult to prefer one of the reports[47].

Conclusion

Fingerprint identification is the oldest forensic discipline is well known to human being. Fingerprints have proved over time to be the most rapid, reliable, and cost-effective means by which to identify unknown deceased individuals, especially in a mass disaster setting. The recovered prints can be manually compared with known ante mortem records or searched through an automated fingerprint system (AFIS) in order to verify or establish identity. Fingerprint evidence cannot be wished away nor supplanted by other forms of evidence. However, given the rise in global crime rates, particularly in India, it is imperative that new technology is utilized to take and preserve fingerprints. This fingerprinting method is very useful to find out the real accused but when the expert submitted their report or when he stands before the court as a witness the prosecutor, defence counsel and the judicial officers can put questions before the expert to clarify their doubts. But the problem behind is many time the prosecutor, defence counsel and the judicial officers are not trained about the finger print method. Hence unable to put questions and their doubts were not solved. In this circumstances government should take necessary steps to give specified training to the prosecutors, advocates and the judicial officers and also assisting the court to find the real accused by using this techniques. Along with that a Fingerprint Code has to be created and maintained by the government is also helpful to identify the real accused and protect the innocent from malicious prosecution.