Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 719
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S.Gill and Pritam Pal JJ.
Sham Sundar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1997,
Decided On : JULY 8, 2005
The admissibility of fingerprint evidence and the identification of recovered items by the complainant were crucial in establishing guilt in the absence of direct evidence.
Headnote:
Fingerprints - Criminal Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 452, Section 411
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of Sham Sunder under Sections 302/452/411 of the Indian Penal Code and Yogesh Kumar under Section 411. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Lalat Chand's wife and theft of her ornaments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence and forensic reports, which connected them to the crime. The court upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of fingerprint evidence, the delay in obtaining palm prints, and the identification of recovered ornaments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of fingerprint evidence and the identification of recovered ornaments by the complainant to establish guilt. The delay in obtaining palm prints was deemed inconsequential.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were maintained.
Key Points: - The court relied on admissibility of fingerprint evidence and identification of recovered ornaments to establish guilt. (!) (!) - Delay in sending specimen palm impressions was considered inconsequential to the case. (!) - The case rests on circumstantial evidence and forensic reports linking appellants to the crime, including recoveries identified by the complainant. (!) (!) (!)
What is the admissibility of fingerprint evidence in establishing guilt in the absence of direct evidence?
What is the impact of delay in obtaining palm prints on the reliability of fingerprint evidence?
What is the identification of recovered ornaments and its sufficiency in linking accused to the crime?
Pritam Pal, J.
1. The aforementioned two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8-11 -1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby appellant Sham Sunder was convicted under Sections 302/452/411 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Yogesh Kumar was convicted only under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced as under:-
-
Appellant-Sham Sunder :-
- To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 302, IPC. To undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 452, IPC. Imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 411. All the sentences awarded to run concurrently. Appellant-- Yogesh Kumar : To undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 411, IPC. Since both these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal in case FIR No. 170 dated 23-3-1995, Police Station City, Karnal, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2 In nut-shell, facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus :
On 23-3-1995, Lalat Chand, a complainant in this case, had his lunch with his wife Krishna Kumari alias Rani, (since deceased) in his house No. 300, Old Housing Board Colony, Karnal. After his lunch, he left for his office. When at about 5.25 p.m. he came back from the office to his house and called his wife, but she did not respond. He then noticed that her dead-body was lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. There were splashes of blood on the wall. Other items and house-hold articles were also lying scattered. Complainant further noticed that the ornaments worn by his wife were also missing from the dead-body. The steel almirah and other places in the house were also found ransacked. Immediately, after seeing so, the complainant rushed to the police and made a statement Ex. P/H before Mohinder Kumar, Sub Inspector in the above, narration of facts. The endorsement Ex. PH/1 was made thereon and ultimately, FIR No. 170 dated 23-3-1995 (Ex. PH/2) was registered on the same day at 7.15 p.m. vide Daily Dairy Report No. 37. He then also informed about the occurrence to his daughters who had gone to Delhi. The matter was investigated. Appellant Sham Sunder on his arrest made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of four bangles and a pair of carryings (topus) which were taken into possession and identified by the complainant. Similarly, appellant Yogesh Kumar, after his arrest also got recovered a golden chain and a ring from an empty cabinet of a television lying in the shop-- G. K. Electronics belonging to his brother, situated at Meeran Ghati, Karnal. The aforesaid ornaments were also identified by Lalat Chand, complainant as belonging to his wife-- Krishna Kumari alias Rani (since deceased). These were taken into possession. During investigation of this case, it was found that the sample palm prints of accused Sham Sunder, when compared with the chance palm prints, tallied to each other.
3. After completion of the formal investigation of the case, both the appellants were challaned and ultimately, they were charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Dr. Varinder Parmar, P.W. 2 Ram Singh, Finger Print Expert, Madhuban, P.W. 3 Prem Chand Hudda Addl. Director Finger Prints, P.W. 4 Mulakh Raj, Draftsman, P.W. 5 Lalat Chand, Complainant, P.W. 6 Head Constable Gurdev Singh, P.W. 7 Ramesh Chand, Finger Print Expert, P.W. 8 Const. Surinder Pal, P.W. 9 Sub Inspt. Mohinder Kumar, P.W. 10 Inspector Nri
