FINGERPRINTS

Dactylography (Dermatoglyphics)-
The utilization of fingerprints for identification of person is very extensive in every nook
and corner of the world. Of all the physical features by which we are guided to identify a
particular person there are none more certain than the minute ridges and furrows, which
cover the skin of the bulb of the fingers. The construction of the papillary lines on the
finger tips, its permanency lasting from the seventh month of the womb life till the
decomposition of the texture after death, and it’s absolutely distinct shape in every
individual have long been established beyond doubt.
The term fingerprint is used to describe a reproduction of the friction ridge
arrangement present on the tips of the fingers when an impression is deposited on a
touched surface.
Friction ridge skin is present on the palmar and plantar surfaces of the hands and
feet. As such, impressions from the fingers and palms of the hands as well as the toes and
soles of the feet can all be used for personal identification purposes.
-Fingerprint evidence is the most positive investigative means of identifying people.
-Every fingerprint is unique.
-Fingerprints form on a person before birth and remain unchanged until the body
decomposes after death.
-Fingerprint impressions often look alike. But when they are examined closely, their
differences can prove the prints to have been made by different fingers.

Law regulating fingerprint evidence in India:
Under Section 3 of Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920, the Station house officers and
investigating officers are empowered to take fingerprints of every person who has been
convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or
upwards or of any offence which render him liable to enhanced punishment on a
subsequent conviction.
Under sec 4 of Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920, the SHOs and investigating officers
are empowered to take fingerprints of non-convicted persons who have been arrested in
connection with an offence punishable with RI for a term of one or more year.
A first class magistrate can direct to give the Finger-Prints of any person arrested in or for
the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under Cr.PC under section 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act 1920.
A magistrate can also direct to take the fingerprint of a person in the course of a
criminal trial u/s 73 of Indian Evidence Act.
Under provision of S 73 Indian Evidence Act and S 5 and 6 of Identification of
Prisoners Act 1920, the law enforcing authorities and courts have been empowered to
take fingerprints of a person for the purpose of investigation or identification.
If any convict resists giving fingerprints, necessary measures should be taken to
secure his fingerprints as per section 6 of Identification of Prisoners Act. If he still refuses,
he can be charged u/s 186 IPC and he is liable for punishment.
Statutory Recognition of Fingerprint Evidence
Originally the term finger impression was not included in the section. The Amendment
Act of 1899, added the phrase finger impression. This was the result of the decision of the
Calcutta High Court in R. v. Fakir”, wherein it was held that the comparison of thumb
impressions must be made by the court itself and that the opinion of an expert was not
admissible under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act.' So this section says that an expert in
fingerprint science can be called by the court to form an opinion.
 Another section that included the scope of finger impression is Section 73 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The phrase finger impression was also added to this section by the
Amendment Act of 1899.
Even though the section does not specifically say by whom comparison has to be made, by
reading Sections 45 and 73, it can be said the comparison is to be done by an expert.
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also deals with the facts necessary to explain or
introduce relevant facts. Finger impressions are considered as proof of identifying
persons. So finger impressions can be taken as a relevant fact when it proves the identity
of a person.

Case Laws:
If a sufficient number of ridge characteristics are in complete agreement in the two thumb
impressions it can be said definitely that impressions were made by the same person.
In State of M.P. v. Sitaram Gajraj Singh (Raipur MPLJ 197 (201): Cr.L.J. 1220 (1223) it was
laid down:-
So no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be seen on its own merits and
cases of well grouped characteristics in a narrow area and patterns uncommon, SIX points
or EVEN LESS may be sufficient to fix the identity.

In United States Shipping Board V. The Ship ‘St Albans,’ it was observed, “the witness must
have made a special study or acquired a special experience therein. That he must be
skilled and have an adequate knowledge of the subject”.
It was held in Chintamani Dissil vs M. Lakshman that, “The mere opportunity to see
fingerprints does not make one an expert. It is scientific study and outlook on the problem
that is required for an expert. As such a sub-registrar is not an expert on fingerprints….

In Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh, AIR 1978 S.C. 1183, it was held as follows:- Similarly it is for a
competent technician to examine and give his opinion whether the identity can be
established and if so whether this can be done on eight or even less identical
characteristics in an appropriate case."

In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1979 SC 1708. 1979 Cr.L.J. 1386) their Lordships
said:-
The science of identifying thumb impressions is an EXACT SCIENCE and does not admit of
any mistake.

Basso Prasad v. State of Bihar, it has been held that unless it is established in the cross-
examination that the opinion given by the expert is incorrect, the said evidence cannot be
discarded on showing minor discrepancies.
Any person who attacks the Finger Print Expert's testimony on the ground that the
questioned or the sample print does not show the Delta or Core or the portion enclosing
the type of Pattern is grossly mistaken or misguided. By doing so, he rather displays his
utter ignorance of the basic tenets of the method of Finger Print Identification. To-day
personal identification by means of a Finger or Thumb impressions is not only a SCIENCE
in itself but is an EXACT SCIENCE.

In Govinda Reddy vs state of Mysore, (AIR) 1958 Mys. 177, Cr.L.J. 1489) it was held:-
"The science of comparison of finger prints has developed to a stage of EXACTITUDE. It Is
quite possible to compare the impressions, provided they are sufficiently clear and
enlarged photography is available. The identification of finger impressions with the aid of
a good magnifying glass is not difficult, particularly when the photographs of the latent
and patent impressions are pasted side by side."
As observed above the science of identification of finger or thumb impressions is an
EXACT SCIENCE and an accused can be convicted on the evidence of a Finger Print Expert
alone.

In Chauthl v. State (1978 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 122 All.), it was held:-
"In a case of forgery in which the accused denied having put his thumb impressions, the
accused was convicted on the evidence of the expert who gave his opinion that the thumb
impression was that of the accused after comparing the finger prints of the complainant
and the accused."
As already mentioned earlier, finally it is the JUDGE/COURT who has to examine and
decide the correctness of the conclusions of an Expert.

In Bhaluka Behara and others v. State (AIR 1957 Orissa 172), their, Lordships said:-
"If the finger prints are clear enough the Court must verify the evidence of the expert by
examining them with a magnifying glass if necessary, 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. The science has developed to a stage of exactitude. But the main
thing to be scrutinised is whether the Expert's examination is THOROUGH, COMPLETE
and SCIENTIFIC."
Sometimes it is observed that Experts are produced by both the parties in support of their
versions. The main object in such instances is to nullify the weight of the Expert Evidence
produced by one party. In such cases Evidence of the Expert is at times discarded and the
case is decided on the other evidences by the court. In a way it is an injustice to the Expert
who has given a correct opinion. If the presiding officers paid a little attention and
observed the facts themselves, the correctness of the opinion of one of the Experts could
be judged very easily.

Such a view was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (AIR 1923 Mad 178), where the
Court observed that: -
"When the Experts appear on both sides, the Court can not leave the matter merely by
saying that it was difficult to prefer one of the report. The Court should have examined the
characteristics with the magnifying glasses."


The fingerprints of the following classes of convicts shall not be removed from record
until death:
— -Persons convicted of offences against state.
— -Professional prisoners (328 IPC)
— -Persons convicted of counterfeit and currency section of IPC (231 to 260 and
489A to 489D IPC)
— -Persons convicted under Foreigner’s Act(14F Act)
— -Persons convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act (14D, 16DD Act)
— -Persons convicted under the explosive substance Act
— -All international criminals
The fingerprint slips are housed in specially built recording cabinets.

— Single digit records of all interstate burglars i.e. criminals convicted anywhere in
India under section 454/380 IPC and 457/380 IPC are maintained in the single digit
section of CFPB
— Battley system for single digit classification is used.

BASIC PATTERNS OF FINGER PRINTS:

In a LOOP, the friction ridges enter from one side of the pattern, re-curve, and pass out or
tend to pass out the same side the ridges entered.
Ulnar loop: In type of pattern re-curving ridges originate from and return to the little
finger side of the hand and thus named after the ulna forearm bone.
Radial loop: in this kind of loop, re-curving ridges originate from, return to the thumb
side of the hands, and thus named after the radius forearm.
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.
 Plain arch: this is the simplest among all recorded fingerprint patterns. In this pattern
ridges lying one above the other in an arching configuration. The ridges enter the pattern
on the left and flow smoothly toward the right with a little rise in the center of the pattern
and thus form a hump.
Tented arch: this involves formation of arch with at-least on up-thrusting ridge at
right angles to ridges above it. In this pattern most of the ridges entre the pattern on the
left.
In a WHORL, the friction ridges tend to have a circular or spiral ridge flow.
The shape of the complete circuit may be spiral, oval, circular or any other variant of
the circle. They are classified as spiral and oval.
COMPOSITE:
It contains at least two different patterns described as above, other than the basic arch.
This kind of pattern is found only in fewer numbers among all known patterns. It is
subdivided into the following.
Central pocket loop: It contains at least one free re-curving ridge and two points of delta.
A straight line between the points of delta will intersect none of the ridges revolving
around the core.
Double loop (Twinned loop): It contains two separate loop formations and two points of
delta.
Lateral pocket loop: This is also a double loop pattern that is formed by two loops either
over-lapping or surrounding each other. Both loop formations flow in the same directions
with core lines without being divided by either of the deltas.
Accidental: It contains two deltas, one relating to an up-thrust and other relating to a re-
curve. This pattern is too irregular to be placed in any of the above categories.
• Approximately
• 65% of all fingerprint patterns are loops,
• 30% are whorls, and
• 5% are arches
ELEMENTS OF FINGERPRINTS:
There are three basic elements of fingerprints:
Re-curve: A re-curve is any ridge retracting its course and includes the bends in a loop or
the circular course of a whorl. Arches and tented arches lack free re-curves.
Delta: It is a point from which the ridges converge into three directions. Arches and some
tented lack deltas. It is also termed as a tri-radius.
Core: The central area of the pattern is referred to as the core. It contains the point of
core, all of the re-curving ridges and the ridges that conform to them. The precise point of
core is determined differently for each pattern type.
The ridge characteristics most commonly referred to are:
Islands: Also referred to as dots, which are single independent ridge units;
Short ridges: In which both ends of the ridge are readily observable;
Ridge endings: Where a ridge comes to an abrupt end;
Bifurcations: In which a ridge forks into two;
Enclosures: Which are formed by two bifurcations that face each other;
Spurs: Where the ridge divides and one branch comes to an end;
Crossovers: In which a short ridge crosses from one ridge to the next.
Ridge counting: For the purpose of comparing two fingerprints of any type loop or whorl
and to ascertain whether they are identical or non-identical the line counting from delta
to the core point or from any one individual point to another is most essential. In
classification, it is important to remember that the terminal points ‘Core’ and ‘Delta’
according to Henry system, they should be dropped in counting.
Ridge tracing:
In pattern of whorl type ridge tracing or ridge coursing is adopted by taking the lower
branch of the left delta as the starting point. It starts from the left delta and goes towards
the right delta.
If the line from left delta to right delta goes above or inside the right delta intervening by
two or more ridges the tracing is called ‘Inner’ or ‘I’. If it joins the right delta point or it
goes above or below it by not more than two ridges, it is called ‘Meeting’ or ‘M’. And, if this
line goes outside or below the right delta by more than two ridges, it is called ‘Outer’ or
‘O’.

Latent fingerprints and crime investigation:
Latent fingerprints have been defined as the markings of oily matter or perspiration
from the skin glands, left upon any surface, which the hands and any fingers may have
touched. These are often perceptible to the unaided eye, although in other instances they
are actually “Latent” being indistinct or even invisible and require developing or
“disclosing” treatment to establish their utility.
Latent prints come to use when chemicals or powders develop them. The effort to
render latent prints visible may or may not be successful. It depends on the quality of the
prints, nature of the object touched, and condition of the skin leaving impressions, the
amount of pressure applied to the object touched, and the atmospheric condition of the
surroundings.
Life of an impression depends entirely on the amount of moisture on the ridges and upon
the conditions of atmosphere.
The efforts of latent print examiners are directed toward two ultimate goals: one is the
successful developing or enhancing of a latent print, and the other is identification or
elimination based upon the developed latent print.
-Main purpose to recognize the potential areas, which may contain latent prints
-Utilize techniques to process such an area (with the objective of developing those latent
prints and making them visible)
-Comparison of developed latent print


CHANCE FINGERPRINTS:
There are two general categories to describe the fingerprint evidence that may be found
at a crime scene or an item related to a criminal matter:
Visible fingermarks
Latent fingermarks
Visible finger marks:
Visible finger marks, as the term suggests, are visible without any particular treatment,
such marks may be:
-Positive, where fingerprint ridges form an image contaminated with a colored
substance such as blood, ink, paint etc.
-Negative, where the fingerprint ridges remove surface material such as dust and soot.
-Indented (molded/plastic), caused by the contact of the finger with a malleable
substance (putty, candle wax, wet paint, etc.) that subsequently retains a three-
dimensional image of the print.
Development of latent fingerprints:
The latent impressions can be made visible and the ridges of the prints may be made clear
in its details by the use of physical and chemical means. The methods used are as follows:
1) Powder
2) Liquids
3) Gases or vapours
4) Casts or moulds
5) Photography

Techniques of application:
The powders are selected according to the particular surface, if the background is of light
colored the black powder and if black, white powders should be applied, i.e. the powders,
which may reproduce maximum contrast with the background, should be utilized.
Powder dusting is a physical method of enhancement that relies on the mechanical
adherence of fingerprint powder particles to the moisture and oily components of skin
ridge deposits. Brushing carries out the application.
Black powder—ferric oxide, manganese dioxide, lampblack powder, titanium oxide
powder,
Grey powder--- chemist grey powder, lead carbonate powder.
Recent development: Charcoal, Titanium, Aluminium Powder, fine quartz powder,
Luminescent fingerprint powder
These powders fluoresce or phosphoresce upon exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, laser
light and other light sources. These powders are useful for visualization of latent prints
deposited on the multi-colored surfaces (due to contrast problem)
Magnetic powders are particularly successful in the recovery of latent prints from
surfaces such as leather, plastics, walls and human skin, used for processing latent prints
on the vertical surfaces as well. Iron oxide or iron powder.
Coloured or oblique lighting is used to observe weakly visible marks.
Fingerprints in blood can be enhanced using specific optical techniques or by the
application of an appropriate staining procedure or chemical treatment.
On metal surfaces like aluminium and brass (e.g. cartridge cases), corrosion processes
may take place between the metal and some salts and acids in the fingerprint residue to
produce a visible finger mark.
Indented finger mark may be difficult to visualize or record photographically,
good lighting techniques like oblique light, powdering and casting by silicone casting
material is used.
Optical detection technique:
It is non-destructive with respect to the latent fingerprint deposits. The simple
observation of an object under white light may disclose a visible fingerprint that can be
photographed without any further treatment. The contrast in marks contaminated with a
coloured material such as blood can be significantly enhanced using selective absorption
technique.
Use of liquids:
This process consists in moistening the suspected surface with chemical reagent in liquid
form. To avoid damage by reagents it is advisable to first take the photograph of the
object. At many occasions it is found that the prints, which were visible before the use of
chemicals, were altogether disappeared after development. Ink is also utilized in
developing latent prints on paper. Simply blowing warm breath over the objects may
develop latent on glass and similar surface.
Silver nitrates process:
Latent prints on shirt, collars, cuffs, handkerchiefs, sheets etc. are dipped in or sprayed
with silver nitrate solution. The material is then left to dry in the dark room. When
thoroughly dry it is exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light. The fingerprints thus revealed
are then photographed. Silver nitrate reagent gives reddish brown colouration on reaction
of silver nitrate with the chloride present in the fingerprint deposit.
Ninhydrin reagent reacts with amino acids of the fingerprint and gives purple reddish
stains.
Fuming process:
Latent on anonymous letters or articles that are not handled by any other person can be
developed by gases or fumes. This process can fume a number of objects at the same time
and the fuming continued for as long as required.
Iodine fuming gives yellowish brown colour.
Cyanoacrylate fuming-superglue method
Cyanoacrylate fuming has been successfully used for the development of latent prints on
surfaces as diverse as plastics, electrical tape, garbage bags, Styrofoam, carbon paper,
aluminium foil, finished and unfinished wood, rubber, copper and other metals,
cellophanes, rubber bands and smooth rocks.
Casting or moulding:
Latent prints found in dust floor, blood and such other substances in which details are
visible but the attempt of powdering may seem to be of no consequence or if it may
appear that the action of powdering may destroy the evidence, in such cases casts will
prove to be of great value.
Lifting latent prints:
Lifting means transferring the object to another surface, it becomes necessary when it is
beyond the range of camera. Since the lifters are always sticky they absorb the object
dusted with powder. Thus the latent print comes on the sticky side of the lifter.
Photography of latent print:
The first and the foremost step to handle the latent fingerprint is to take photograph of
the subject. By the use of photography some inconspicuous details in a latent trace can be
made prominent through enlargement, and shown to be identical with the print of the
suspect.
Photograph should not only be taken of the object on which the fingerprints appear, but
should extend to the entire scene of crime. The object on which the fingerprints appear
are the main things and since they are necessary to be produced before the court of law
and the tiny ridges may not give any evidence because of their faded shapes, the enlarged
photographic exhibits will combine to enable the judges to explicitly observe the minutiae
themselves. Thus photographs will present a best type of evidence.
Identification:
Identification means the comparison of two single prints and to find out whether they are
identical or non-identical.
In civil and criminal suits the question arises whether the particular print is genuine or
not i.e. identical or non-identical with the standard print.
Satisfactory report of the expert:
In comparing the two fingerprints, the first attempt should be directed to trace out the
patterns. The area of the Centre point or core will indicate the type or the sub-class of
the pattern. If the two prints are similar in type or its sub-class the next step should be to
find out whether all the minutiae or characteristic features agree with each other in the
contested and specimen prints or not. If they tally and coincide with each other the
impressions should be declared as identical. If the patterns are exhibiting different shape
and design, this only fact is sufficient to positively declare that the two prints are non-
identical.
The expert should first take photographs of 2 to 4 diameters of both the contested and the
specimen prints and then carefully mark the points of identity. The lines form the
characteristic points should be drawn up to the marginal edges of the photographs and
number should be given to each line. This being properly done the expert should mention
in his report the details of the shape of one point in relation to the other point and its
distance (counts of ridges) from one point to another. The correct position, location, shape
and design of the points should be considered.
The mere assertion of an expert in fingerprints that the disputed and the specimen
impressions are identical is not enough for a court to accept it. In order to make it
acceptable, the points enumerated and marked by an expert must be sufficiently clear for
others to perceive and follow. If the points enumerated by the expert are not distinct, a
jury is not wrong in not accepting the evidence of the expert.
How many points are sufficient to establish identity?
Since long it has been said that a minimum of twelve identical characteristic details
together with the exact resemblance of pattern must be found. But it is also considered
that a rare detail is an identification sign one hundred times more important than a whole
series of forks, four to five details in the centre of an unusual pattern have much more
value as evidence than twelve to fifteen forks in the periphery. Some ridges with unusually
grouped pores have more weight than the classical twelve points.
The modern views regarding the number of points to establish identity is that six
points with the sameness of the pattern are sufficient to say that the two impressions are
the prints of one and the same digit. While considering these points
(1) The clearness of the impression
(2) Rarity of pattern,
(3) Presence of distinctly recognisable core or delta,
(4) Manifest agreement of breadth of ridges and furrows, direction of lines and the
angular measurements of forks, ridge counting and ridge tracing should be taken into
account.

Forgery of fingerprints:
The fingerprint forgery may be classified as:
a) The false document is prepared over a genuine thumb impression. This may be
called a ‘Genuine forged’ fingerprint.
b) Transferring the genuine fingerprint to any blank paper or document by chemical
process or by photography, lithography or rubber stamps.
c) Affixing a smudged impression on a document and rendering it blurred by
overlapping prints, thus making it completely smudged beyond recognition.

Footprints:
A footprint means an impression left by the sole of a foot. The skin pattern of toes and
heels is distinctive and the impression is therefore helpful for
1) Identification in relation to chance footprints found at the scene of crime.
While comparing the footprint of the suspect with the original peculiarities such as flat
foot, supernumerary toes, etc. should be specially looked for and, if presents are helpful
for identification. In the case of boot mark, the pattern and arrangement of nails may be
useful.
Since footprints made when a person is standing, walking slow or fast, or running or
jumping, create a difference, the evidential value of footprints in criminology is obviously
less than that of fingerprints. It acts mainly as corroborative evidence.

Footwear marks:
Footwear marks include the marks of shoes, sandal, chappals, socks and the like. The
footwear may be factory-made or hand-made. The footwear evidence suffers from one
great drawback. If the culprit is not apprehended soon after the crime and he continues to
wear the shoes, the additional wear and tear will change the original surface pattern and
may not allow identification of the marks in respect of the shoes.