These are three dimensional impressions. Statutory Recognition Of Fingerprints In India Identification Of Prisoners Act, The main objective of this act is to provide legal authority for collecting of measurements relating to finger impressions, footprints, photographs of the person accused or suspected of any offence. Before the enactment of this Act, taking of finger impressions of criminals and suspected criminals is void of legal sanction.
But now it has validated the taking of finger impressions and measurements as mentioned in S. It explains that every person who has been convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall give his measurements to be taken by a police officer.
The term measurements include finger impressions also. The Act also makes it compulsory to destroy the measurements on discharge or acquittal by any court. Under S. Code Of Criminal Procedure, S. Basically this section intends to save time and avoid needless examinations. But if certain suspicions arise in the report the court can summon the person who has submitted the report. Indian Evidence Act, The importance of fingerprints due to its uniqueness, permanence, universality, inimitability and classifiablness gave statutory recognition and the legislators held fingerprint as valid evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act, contains provisions wherein fingerprints are considered as a valid piece of evidence. Originally the term finger impression was not included in the section. The Amendment Act of added the phrase finger impression. Whether obtaining of finger impressions from an accused amounts to self incrimination has been put to debate.
The right against self incrimination is regarded as one of the main safeguard in criminal procedures. Reasons being that of ensuring reliability of the statements made by an accused, and secondly, ensuring that the statements which are made by an accused are voluntarily given. There are many chances that the person who is regarded as accused or suspect may be compelled by coercion or threats during his investigation process and when a person is being compelled to do so there are higher chances that he may give false testimony.
False testimony leads to mislead of judges and even the prosecutor and leading in miscarriage of justice. In Re Sheik Muhammad Hussain, [1]it was held by the Madras High Court that when police acquires fingerprints for the course of investigation and which is later used in the trial procedure did not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20 3 and this is admissible as evidence.
In Selvi and others vs. And even it was further made clear that verbal revelations made during a Narcoanalysis do not attract the bar of Article 20 3 because the inculpatory or exculpatory nature of these revelations is not known at the time of conducting the test.
In State of Kerala vs. Sankaran Nair [3], the Kerala High Court considered the privilege against self incrimination and obtaining of handwritings which are obtained by non voluntary act of the person concerned. The court concluded that the guarantee against self incrimination is never violated. Even in Gulzhar Khan v. State [4], Delhi Administration v. Pali Ram [5] and Kumaran Nair v. Bhargavi [6], the court mentioned that the direction given by court to give finger impressions or specimen handwritings is not against the right under Article 20 3.
There are various conflicting decisions made about the right given in Article 20 3 in case State of Bombay vs. Kathikalu Oughad [7] there are certain issues which are dealt. They are related to: Whether obtaining of handwritings from an accused of crime by police for comparison is covered under Article 20 3 ; Direction which is given by a court to an accused who is present in the court to give his specimen of handwriting and signature for comparison under Section.
The Court, by majority, held that the Constitution makers intended to protect an accused person from self-incrimination and they have never intended to put some hurdles in any efficient or effective investigations which may lead justice to criminals. And Section 73 of Indian evidence Act and Section 5 and 6 of Identification of Prisoners Act also permits taking of thumb impressions and handwritings and these documents provided by them are not personal testimony and does not come under the preview Article 20 3.
Even before the commencement of Constitution obtaining of finger impressions were in existence. Fingerprinting can of course be said to be an encroachment on liberty of person. Moreover, when the person is called upon by any court or authority for giving his fingerprints or specimen of handwritings he is not giving anything related to personal testimony. This personal testimony depends upon volition. An accused person can make any statement or even he may refuse to make any statement but he cannot deny giving his prints and specimen of handwriting.
The evidences which are collected by the forensic investigators establish the involvement or presence of the person in a definite place or even the traces of a particular substance. When the person concerned is ready to give his signature and the specimen of handwritings without raising any objections then the protection under Article 20 3 of the Indian Constitution is not hindered and then these can be taken into consideration; and even the direction given to an accused to give signature, thumb impressions, footprints, fingerprints to be a witness against himself is not hit by Article 20 3.
These things are neither oral nor documentary evidences but belong to the third category of material evidences, which is beyond the limit of testimony. Along with DNA, fingerprints can play an important role in identifying victims following natural or manmade disasters such as an earthquake or bombing. This is important not only for the police investigating the incident, but also for the families concerned. We also provide training to police in our member countries, to ensure that frontline officers have the knowledge and skills necessary to assess, preserve and share evidence in line with best practices.
Related documents. Guidelines concerning Fingerprints Transmission. Guidelines concerning transmission of Fingerprint Crime Scene Marks. Requiring a second latent print examiner review typically not a blind-review of every latent print comparison in every case, including all eliminations non-idents. The US Visit Program has been migrating from two flat not rolled fingerprints to ten flat fingerprints since As of July , the FBI's Next Generation Identification NGI conducts more than , tenprint record daily searches against more than million computerized fingerprint records both criminal and civil applicant records.
The , daily fingerprint searches support 18, law enforcement agencies and 16, non-law enforcement agencies 7. FBI civil fingerprint files in NGI primarily including federal employees and federal employment applicants have become searchable by all US law enforcement agencies in recent years. Many enlisted military service member fingerprint cards received after , and most officer, enlisted and civilian military-related fingerprint cards received after 19 May , have been computerized and are searchable.
As of July , NGI's civil fingerprint repository has 60,, searchable fingerprint records and over 64 million criminal fingerprint records. The FBI continues to expand their automated identification activities to include other biometrics such as palm, face, and iris. Every state in the America, as well as many large cities, have their own AFIS databases, each with a subset of fingerprint records which are not stored in any other database.
Palmprints are also stored and searched in many of these databases. Law enforcement fingerprint interface standards are important to enable sharing records and reciprocal searches to identify criminals. India's Unique Identification project is also known as Aadhaar, a word meaning "the foundation" in several Indian languages. Aadhaar is a voluntary program with the goal of providing most of India's estimated 1.
Fingerprints cannot be altered or destroyed through burning or cutting through the skin. Then on the other hand, it could also help to identify criminals before they have committed anything. If that is the case, then the individual could be given prior help l Consequently, with the use of neuroscience to study the predisposition of criminality on an individual, there needs to be a distinction between those that only have a predisposition and those that have already committed a crime.
In fact, those with just a predisposition may never commit a crime in their life. They need to be kept and treated differently, as the lecture mentioned, because people cannot control what they think, but most can control their actions.
Some other reasons as to why people may be driven to do these unethical acts include greed to gain power and a higher status, forgetting to be unbiased, and not wanting to let their team down. These acts can be easily prevented through background checks, proper training, and good management of forensic scientists.
The actions and observations of investigators and criminalists will most likely be presented during a court case so their reputations depend on how ethically and accurately they did their job.
Forensic science specialists must recreate the crime scene to the court with their testimony and speak the truth for the voiceless victim.
Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. With enough research it is found that prints are more complex, interesting, and unique than might be thought. Without prints there would be no evidence at a crime scene that lasts long enough without disappearing.
What people need to realize is that there is more to prints than just fingerprints and that there is more involved when collecting and processing them than what is shown on television.
0コメント