Back
S.MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL
Ramesh @ Pindari – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
No, the provided legal document does not address or establish any principle regarding whether a thumb impression alone can be obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
The abbreviation "RTI" in this judgment specifically refers to "Right Thumb Impression" (a form of mark or signature used by the visually challenged victim, PW-1, on legal documents due to her inability to sign), and not the RTI Act. (!) (!) (!) [11000609410001][11000609410017][11000609410018][11000609410023][11000609410031]
Thumb impressions of PW-1 appear repeatedly as evidentiary elements, but always in conjunction with other details, such as endorsements, witness attestations, or contextual statements, rather than "alone": - On the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC), below an explicit endorsement confirming willingness for examination and sample collection. (!) - On police statements under Section 161 CrPC, Section 164 CrPC, and arrest/ disclosure memos, alongside other procedural steps like interrogation or pointing out. (!) (!) [11000609410017][11000609410018] - No instance suggests a thumb impression functions independently without supporting text, witnesses, or procedural context; its validity ties to overall evidence reliability, which the court deemed deficient due to inconsistencies.[11000609410043][11000609410056]
The judgment critiques investigative lapses and evidence quality (e.g., victim testimony, medical/forensic reports) but contains no discussion of information disclosure rights, public authority obligations, or biometric data like thumb impressions under any information regime.[11000609410041][11000609410042][11000609410055]
If the query intends "Right Thumb Impression" validity in criminal proceedings (not RTI Act), the court implies such impressions are routine for illiterate/visually impaired persons but insufficient alone to prove reliability without corroboration. (!) (!) [11000609410043] For RTI Act-specific advice, consult Section 8(1)(j) principles on personal information exemptions, as this document is irrelevant.
S. Muralidhar, J.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th September 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court-2 (Central) (‘the trial Court’) in SC No. 27600/2016 arising out of FIR No.26/2015 convicting the three Appellants, viz. Beeru (‘A-1’ who has preferred Crl.A. 14/2018), Islam (‘A-2’ who has preferred Crl.A. 1122/2017), and Ramesh @ Pindari (‘A-3’ who has preferred Crl.A. 1029/2017), for the offences under Section 366/34 IPC, Section 376D IPC, Section 376 (2) (l) IPC, and Section 506/34 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 26th September 2017 whereby the Appellants were sentenced as under:-
a. For offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC, to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of convicts’ natural life, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- each, to be paid to the victim and in default whereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 1 year.
b. For offence punishable under Section 366/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for 10 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof, to unde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
