1944 Present: Howard C.J. and Jayetileke J.

SINGHO APPU, Appellant, and THE KING, Respondent.

50- D. C. (Crim.), Colombo, 606.

Evidence-Foot-print-Charge of housebreaking and theft-Foot-print found on a table, the only evidence-Inference of guilt-Evidence Ordinance, s. 45.

Where on an indictment for housebreaking and theft, the only evidence against the accused was that of a foot-print which was found on a table at the scene of the offence and which was identified as that of the accused by an expert who gave adequate reasons for his opinion

Held, that the Court could convict the accused on the evidence of the foot-print though it was the sole ground of identification.

APPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Colombo.

L. A. Rajapakse, K.C (with him S. W. Jayasuriya), for the accused, appellant.-The appellant has been convicted of housebreaking and theft. The conviction is based solely on the opinion of a finger-print expert that a foot-print found at the scene of the offence is that of the accused. finger impressions only, and not foot impressions, are mentioned in section 45 of the Evidence Ordinance. The evidentiary value of foot-prints is of a doubtful nature and not as high as that of finger-prints, and a Court should not convict on the evidence of foot-prints alone-Doole v. Charles 1[ (1928) 6 C. L. W. 79]; R. v. Matambo 2[S. A. L. R. (1935) O. P. D. 143.]; R. v. Mlanto 3[S. A. L. R. (1935) E. D. L., April 11]; Vol. 52 8. A. L. Journal, p. 359.

A. C. Alles, CC., for the Crown, respondent.-The evidence of the foot-print in this case is very clear and was given by an expert of great experience. Knowledge regarding foot impressions has today reached the exactness and status of a science. Further, the words " science " and " art " in section 45 of the Evidence Ordinance are to be construed widely. The conviction in this case is right-Wilder and Wentworth on Personal Identification (1918 ed.) p. 26; Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (7th ed.) p. 230; Sidik Sumar v. Emperor4[ (1941) 43 Cr. L. J. 308 at 309.]; In re Mylaswami Goundan 5[(1937) 39 Cr. L. J. 149.].

Cur. adv. vult.

January 16, 1945. HOWARD C.J.-

This is an appeal from a decision by the District Court of Colombo convicting the appellant of (a) housebreaking under section 443 of the Penal Code and (b) theft of a clock and other articles under section 367 of the Code. The only evidence against the appellant was that of a foot-print found on a table. It is contended by Counsel for the appellant that the latter could not be convicted on this evidence alone. On the

night of January 21, 1942, a burglary took place at 46, Horton place. In the morning various articles were found missing. On the same morning, an Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department visited the house in question and found a decipherable foot-print on a table. This foot-print on the same morning was photographed by the C. I. D. photographer. On September 15, 1943, the appellant was arrested by the Bambalapitiya Police and five foot-prints were taken with his consent. On September 16, 1943, the photograph, of the foot-print taken on January 22, 1942, at 46, Horton place, was compared by Inspector Wijemanne, the Finger-print Registrar, with the foot-print of the appellant. Enlarged photographs had been made of both foot-prints. The Inspector found 37 sequent points of similarity, and was of opinion that the two prints are of one and the same person.. In giving evidence the Inspector stated that before he compared the foot-print of the appellant with the foot-prints on the scene, he compared-over 700 other foot-prints. None of them tallied. He also stated that, apart from the 37 points of similarity, the pattern, formation and shape of the foot-print found on the scene are similar to the appellant's footprint. Mr. Wijemanne also stated that he had received special training, at Scotland Yard and had had cons