BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness of the decisions in Harpal Singh v. State (Criminal Appeal No.362/2008 decided on 25 th May, 2010) and Satyawan v. State (Criminal Appeal No.34/2001 decided on 9 th July, 2009) wherein the two Division Benches had ignored the part of the report of the handwriting expert on the ground that the investigating officer had taken specimen handwriting in violation of the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (for brevity the 1920 Act?), the Division Bench that was hearing the Criminal Appeals No.1005/2008 [Bhupender Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)] and No. 408/2007 [Drojan Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)], referred the following question to be adjudicated by a larger Bench:

(2.) As the question, that has been referred, totally rests on the interpretation of the provisions of the 1920 Act, the facts need not be adumbrated in detail except stating that at the time of hearing the appeals, the Division Bench, while adverting to the concept of circumstantial issue, was required to deal with the reliance placed by the prosecution on sample finger prints as a part of circumstantial evidence.

(3.) At the very outset, we may refer with profit to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1920 Act. It reads as follows: