Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Fingerprints Under Identification of Prisoners Act in Murder Case: Sonvir vs. State (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 2, 2018
Citation: Not available in the provided text.
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Indu Malhotra, J. (authored separate but concurring judgments)
Can fingerprints taken by police during an investigation be used as evidence if a Magistrate didn’t order it? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case involving a murder conviction. The core issue was whether the police could collect fingerprint evidence without a magistrate’s order under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The bench, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Indu Malhotra, delivered separate but concurring judgments, ultimately acquitting the appellant.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of two individuals, Meena Kinner and Vimlesh Kinner, who were found dead in their residence on October 20, 2009. The police were alerted by a secret informant. The deceased were persons of the third gender. Vimlesh was found on a double bed, and Meena was found in the bathroom. Both had suffered fatal injuries from a sharp weapon. The police investigation led to the apprehension of three individuals: Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1), Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), and Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3). Sonvir @ Somvir was arrested on November 3, 2009, and was allegedly found with jewelry and cash. A blood-stained knife and shirt were also allegedly recovered from his room. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of items and fingerprint evidence. The Trial Court convicted all three accused, but the High Court acquitted Khalil Ahmed. The High Court upheld the conviction of Sonvir @ Somvir, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. This Act provides the legal basis for taking measurements, including fingerprints, of individuals involved in criminal cases. Key sections include:

• Section 3: “Taking of measurements, etc., of convicted persons .– Every person who has been– (a) convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, or of any offence which would render him liable to enhanced punishment on a subsequent conviction; or (b) ordered to give security for his good behaviour under section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)shall, if so required, allow his measurements and photograph to be taken by a police officer in the prescribed manner.” This section deals with taking measurements of convicted individuals.
• Section 4: “Taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons.– Any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner.” This section pertains to taking measurements of non-convicted persons who have been arrested.
• Section 5: “Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed.– If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer: Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the First Class: Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.” This section empowers a Magistrate to order the taking of measurements or photographs for investigation purposes.

The Act aims to provide legal authority for the police to collect such data for crime detection and identification, addressing a previous lack of legal sanction.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the fingerprint evidence was inadmissible because the police took his fingerprints without obtaining a prior order from a Magistrate as required under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
• The appellant contended that Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, which allows a police officer to take measurements of an arrested person, is not applicable when there are no rules or executive instructions prescribing the manner of taking the measurements.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State 191 (2012) DLT 225, which held that measurements under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 can only be taken if the manner is prescribed by rules or executive instructions.
• The appellant submitted that the term “prescribed manner” in Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, means that the procedure for taking fingerprints must be specified by rules framed under Section 8 of the Act.
• The appellant argued that in the absence of such rules, the police should have obtained an order from a Magistrate under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, before taking his fingerprints.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent contended that Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, empowers the police to take fingerprints of an arrested person without a Magistrate’s order.
• The respondent argued that the power of the police to take fingerprints under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, is an independent power and does not require prior permission from a Magistrate.
• The respondent submitted that the phrase “prescribed manner” in Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 refers to a procedural aspect and does not affect the substantive power of the police to take measurements.
• The respondent relied on the fact that there was no cross-examination by the defense regarding the taking of fingerprints as mentioned by PW32.
• The respondent contended that the absence of rules under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, does not invalidate the power of the police under Section 4 of the Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the police can take fingerprints of an arrested person under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, without obtaining an order from a Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act.
2. Whether the absence of rules or executive instructions prescribing the manner of taking measurements under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, renders the fingerprint evidence inadmissible.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

• Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435 (Supreme Court of India): The Court held that it was not necessary for the police to obtain an order from a Magistrate for obtaining specimen fingerprints.
• Mohd. Aman and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 (Supreme Court of India): The Court observed that while the police are competent to take fingerprints under Section 4, it is desirable to take them under a Magistrate’s order to dispel suspicion.
• State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Devendra (2009) 14 SCC 80 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to in the context of the interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
• State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra, (1980) 2 SCC 343 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to in the context of the interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
• Mahmood vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69: (1976) 1 SCC 542 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the Delhi High Court to support the argument that in the absence of a prescribed manner for taking fingerprints, the evidence is inadmissible. However, the Supreme Court held that this case did not lay down such a precedent.
• Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 (Supreme Court of India): The Court reiterated the observations from Mohd. Aman’s case regarding the desirability of taking fingerprints under a Magistrate’s order.
• Ramesh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC 685 (Supreme Court of India): The Court discussed the principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• V.T. Khanzode and Others vs. Reserve Bank of India and Another (1982) 2 SCC 7 (Supreme Court of India): This case was used to interpret enabling powers under a statute, specifically regarding the power to make rules.
• Surinder Singh Vs. Central Government & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 667 (Supreme Court of India): This case was used to support the view that the exercise of power conferred by a statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same.
• Section 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920: These sections were central to the legal analysis, particularly regarding the powers of the police and Magistrate in taking measurements and the role of rules under the Act.
• Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State 191 (2012) DLT 225 (Delhi High Court): This case was relied upon by the Delhi High Court to hold that measurements under Section 4 of the Act can only be taken if the manner is prescribed by rules or executive instructions. This view was overruled by the Supreme Court.
• Bhupinder Singh vs. State (Delhi High Court): This Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court approved the view that police can take specimen fingerprints under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the three-judge bench judgment in Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435*, which held that it was not necessary for the police to obtain an order from a Magistrate for obtaining specimen fingerprints.
• The Court explained the observations in Mohd. Aman and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44*, stating that while a Magistrate’s order is desirable to dispel suspicion, it is not a prerequisite for the police to take fingerprints under Section 4.
• The Court distinguished the judgment in Mahmood vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69: (1976) 1 SCC 542*, clarifying that it did not lay down a precedent that fingerprint evidence is inadmissible in the absence of a prescribed manner.
• The Court reiterated the observations in Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133*, regarding the desirability of taking fingerprints under a Magistrate’s order, but clarified that it is not mandatory.
• The Court cited Ramesh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC 685*, to emphasize that the chain of circumstances must be complete and perfect for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Court relied on V.T. Khanzode and Others vs. Reserve Bank of India and Another (1982) 2 SCC 7* to interpret the enabling powers under a statute, specifically regarding the power to make rules.
• The Court relied on Surinder Singh Vs. Central Government & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 667* to support the view that the exercise of power conferred by a statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same.
• The Court overruled the view of the Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State 191 (2012) DLT 225*, which held that measurements under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 can only be taken if the manner is prescribed by rules or executive instructions. The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of rules does not invalidate the police’s power under Section 4.
• The Court approved the view of the Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh vs. State*, which held that police can take specimen fingerprints under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was influenced by a combination of factors, including the interpretation of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and the evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the police have the power to take fingerprints under Section 4 of the Act without a Magistrate’s order, but this power is not absolute. The Court also noted that the absence of rules under Section 8 of the Act does not invalidate the power of the police under Section 4. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted that the matching of blood groups is not sufficient to establish culpability, and the recovery of items was not conclusively linked to the crime. The Court also noted that the room from where the blood-stained shirt and knife were allegedly recovered was not proven to be in the exclusive possession of the appellant.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether police can take fingerprints under Section 4 without a Magistrate’s order?

Issue 2: Whether absence of rules makes fingerprint evidence inadmissible?

Key Takeaways

• The police have the power to take fingerprints of an arrested person under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, without obtaining a prior order from a Magistrate.
• The absence of rules framed under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, does not invalidate the power of the police to take fingerprints under Section 4.
• The term “prescribed manner” in Section 4 refers to a procedural aspect and does not affect the substantive power of the police to take measurements.
• For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and perfect, pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
• Matching of blood groups alone is not sufficient to establish the culpability of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the acquittal of the appellant, Sonvir @ Somvir, of the charges under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the police have the power to take fingerprints of an arrested person under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, without a Magistrate’s order, and the absence of rules under Section 8 does not invalidate this power. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and overrules the view of the Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State 191 (2012) DLT 225. The Supreme Court upheld the view of the Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh vs. State. The judgment also reinforces the principle that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and perfect, and the matching of blood groups alone is not sufficient to establish culpability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sonvir @ Somvir v. The State of NCT of Delhi clarifies the powers of the police under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, specifically regarding the collection of fingerprint evidence. The Court held that the police can take fingerprints of an arrested person under Section 4 without a Magistrate’s order and that the absence of rules under Section 8 does not invalidate this power. However, the Court also emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and perfect. Ultimately, the Court acquitted the appellant due to the lack of conclusive evidence, highlighting the importance of a thorough and legally sound investigation.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Indian Penal Code,
  • Section 302 (Murder)
  • Section 392 (Robbery)
  • Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)
• Evidence Law
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Fingerprint Evidence
• Criminal Procedure
  • Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920
  • Section 4 (Taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons)
  • Section 5 (Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed)
  • Section 8 (Power to make rules)