MAHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accepting the testimony that the deceased made a dying declaration inculpating the appellant and the evidence of the presence of the appellant at the place where the crime was committed, vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2007, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 380 IPC.

(2.) We shall be noting only such evidence as is required to be discussed by us and would be eschewing reference to the other evidence.

(3.) In holding that the presence of the appellant at the house stands established, the learned Trial Judge has heavily relied upon the report of the finger print expert as per which one of the three chance prints lifted from the scene of the crime matched that of the appellant. We are not noting the evidence led on the said aspect for the reason the sample finger print impressions from the appellant were taken without the permission of the competent Court and without the appellant being identified as per Section 5 of the Identificaiton of the Prisoner's Act 1920. This evidence is clearly inadmissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as AIR 1980 SC 791 State of U.P. vs. Ram Babu Mishra, 1994 (5) SCC 152 Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. vs.State of Punjab and AIR 2003 SC 4377 State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh & Ors.