CHANCE FINGER PRINTS NOT ADMISSIBLE WHILE THE ACCUSED WERE ALREADY IN POLICE CUSTODY
The Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam, was examined as PW-24. He stated that, on receipt of a telephone message from the Police Station, Ichapuram, he visited the scene of offence along with a Clues Team on 22.08.2008 at about 06.00 am and developed four chance fingerprints on a glass show case and one chance fingerprint on a cream-coloured plastic box. He stated that he found photocopies of two of the chance prints unfit for comparison but the chance prints marked as A, D and E were fit for comparison. The fingerprints marked as A and E tallied with the fingerprints of the two accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not receive the specimen fingerprints of the accused through the Court but from the Investigating Officer.
Insofar as this fingerprint evidence is concerned, we find that the same was liable to be eschewed from consideration as the accused were already in custody by the time the so-called chance fingerprints were lifted from the scene of the offence. More importantly, the prescribed procedure was not followed in gathering this so-called evidence. No report was drawn up at the time of lifting of these chance prints in the presence of credible witnesses. Similarly, no report was prepared even at the time the specimen fingerprints of the accused were taken. Therefore, PW-24’s evidence that two of the chance prints tallied with the fingerprints of the accused cannot be given any weightage. Failure in following the due procedure rendered the findings of PW-24 wholly unreliable.
xxx
ACCUSED HAS TO EXPLAIN THE POSSESSION OF STOLEN ORNAMENTS
In this regard, it may also be noted that A2 was found in possession of a bag carrying some of the stolen ornaments and, therefore, such possession itself speaks against him, in terms of Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Being a fact especially within his knowledge, it was for A2 to explain as to how he came to be in possession of those stolen ornaments, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, no explanation was offered by him. As regards A1, it is the prosecution’s case that he confessed to commission of the crime and upon being questioned as to the stolen gold ornaments, he himself went into the other room in his house and brought out a bag containing the gold ornaments. This part of his confession would, therefore, be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it led to the recovery of the stolen gold ornaments.
RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED
No doubt, recovery of this stolen property from the accused would not be sufficient in itself to convict them for murder. However, the weight of the evidence on record, taken cumulatively, unerringly points to 19 the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for second thoughts. The inescapable fact remains that PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were witnesses independent of each other and who had no animosity or enmity with the accused, spoke in unison about seeing them running away from the house of PW-1 of the fateful night with bags in their possession. No explanation is forthcoming as to why three separate witnesses would choose to implicate the accused falsely.
Party
Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2019 – April 21, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/47748/47748_2018_6_1501_43741_Judgement_21-Apr-2023.pdf
Dakkata Balaram Reddy vs. State of A.P
