How can fingerprints be used in a criminal investigation

The latest version v. Both sets of guidelines and the related file package can be downloaded from our GitHub platform. Any feedback, questions or problems can be submitted via the Issues page.

Along with DNA, fingerprints can play an important role in identifying victims following natural or manmade disasters such as an earthquake or bombing.

This is important not only for the police investigating the incident, but also for the families concerned. We also provide training to police in our member countries, to ensure that frontline officers have the knowledge and skills necessary to assess, preserve and share evidence in line with best practices.

Related documents. Guidelines concerning Fingerprints Transmission. Officers often rely on chemical techniques, such as those above, to visualize the evidence. However, inadequate proficiency testing of investigators has led to inaccurate interpretations of the evidence. Recent wrongful convictions and scientific studies of forensic methods have increased scrutiny of the validity and reliability of several forms of forensic evidence, including fingerprints. For fingerprinting, the report emphasized the potential for automating fingerprint analysis, to potentially reduce bias in interpreting match results when fingerprints at a scene are smudged or otherwise unclear.

Skip to main content. The Indian Evidence Act, contains provisions wherein fingerprints are considered as a valid piece of evidence. Originally the term finger impression was not included in the section.

The Amendment Act of added the phrase finger impression. Whether obtaining of finger impressions from an accused amounts to self incrimination has been put to debate. The right against self incrimination is regarded as one of the main safeguard in criminal procedures. Reasons being that of ensuring reliability of the statements made by an accused, and secondly, ensuring that the statements which are made by an accused are voluntarily given.

There are many chances that the person who is regarded as accused or suspect may be compelled by coercion or threats during his investigation process and when a person is being compelled to do so there are higher chances that he may give false testimony.

False testimony leads to mislead of judges and even the prosecutor and leading in miscarriage of justice. In Re Sheik Muhammad Hussain, [1]it was held by the Madras High Court that when police acquires fingerprints for the course of investigation and which is later used in the trial procedure did not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20 3 and this is admissible as evidence.

In Selvi and others vs. And even it was further made clear that verbal revelations made during a Narcoanalysis do not attract the bar of Article 20 3 because the inculpatory or exculpatory nature of these revelations is not known at the time of conducting the test. In State of Kerala vs. Sankaran Nair [3], the Kerala High Court considered the privilege against self incrimination and obtaining of handwritings which are obtained by non voluntary act of the person concerned. The court concluded that the guarantee against self incrimination is never violated.

Even in Gulzhar Khan v. State [4], Delhi Administration v. Pali Ram [5] and Kumaran Nair v. Bhargavi [6], the court mentioned that the direction given by court to give finger impressions or specimen handwritings is not against the right under Article 20 3. There are various conflicting decisions made about the right given in Article 20 3 in case State of Bombay vs. Kathikalu Oughad [7] there are certain issues which are dealt. They are related to: Whether obtaining of handwritings from an accused of crime by police for comparison is covered under Article 20 3 ; Direction which is given by a court to an accused who is present in the court to give his specimen of handwriting and signature for comparison under Section.

The Court, by majority, held that the Constitution makers intended to protect an accused person from self-incrimination and they have never intended to put some hurdles in any efficient or effective investigations which may lead justice to criminals.

And Section 73 of Indian evidence Act and Section 5 and 6 of Identification of Prisoners Act also permits taking of thumb impressions and handwritings and these documents provided by them are not personal testimony and does not come under the preview Article 20 3.

Even before the commencement of Constitution obtaining of finger impressions were in existence. Fingerprinting can of course be said to be an encroachment on liberty of person. Moreover, when the person is called upon by any court or authority for giving his fingerprints or specimen of handwritings he is not giving anything related to personal testimony.

This personal testimony depends upon volition. An accused person can make any statement or even he may refuse to make any statement but he cannot deny giving his prints and specimen of handwriting.

The evidences which are collected by the forensic investigators establish the involvement or presence of the person in a definite place or even the traces of a particular substance. When the person concerned is ready to give his signature and the specimen of handwritings without raising any objections then the protection under Article 20 3 of the Indian Constitution is not hindered and then these can be taken into consideration; and even the direction given to an accused to give signature, thumb impressions, footprints, fingerprints to be a witness against himself is not hit by Article 20 3.

These things are neither oral nor documentary evidences but belong to the third category of material evidences, which is beyond the limit of testimony. Some Case Laws In Ammini v. State of Kerala [8]the fingerprints were found on 2 glasses in the deceased home. The expert compared and tallied those fingerprints with that of the accused. But the Trial Court didn't believed this as important piece of evidence on the point that they are not clear and it was in doubt that whether the photographs were of the original prints.

The High Court criticized the Trial Court for this view and Supreme Court relied on establishing the guilt of the accused on the fingerprints evidence. In Balakrishna Das Agarwal v.

Radha Devi [9]the Court mentioned that the forensic scientist is essentially a witness of the Court; neither a witness on behalf of the prosecution nor on behalf of the defense; and mentioning that an expert is a person who by his experience, knowledge and training expresses his opinion.

Bhaluka Behra v. State [10]case mentions that the weight and importance given to an opinion by an expert is a different thing. A fingerprint is in reality an unforgeable signature. So the evidence of the fingerprint expert is also given considerable weight. Even in Pathumma v. Veerasha [11] case, it was held by Kerala High Court that no two persons can have the same fingerprints. Even finger impressions of an individual differs from it, no two fingers give the same impressions. And if no differences are found we can draw a conclusion that they are made by the same person.

In James v. State of Kerala [12], some finger impressions and foot impressions were obtained from scene of crime and the pictures of the same were taken up. But these photographs were blurred and bit dirty. But the Kerala High Court mentioned that even if the fingerprints are blurred and dirty it depends upon the court to decide that whether they are reliable source of evidence or not. In State v. Karugope[ 13], it was mentioned by Patna High Court that opinion of fingerprint expert is accepted and is regarded as sufficient piece of evidence for the conviction of the accused.

Conclusion The science of fingerprinting is century old discovery. One of the basic importances of fingerprints is that it helps in establishing identity of a person with minimum time and efforts; and then enabling speedy investigation. The fingerprint evidence has been referred to as reliable piece of evidence. They are also permanent and do not undergo any change.

It is necessary for the courts to form an opinion only after discussion or after concerning with an expert. While admitting fingerprints the court should be careful enough to study the reasons which are given by the expert.