Case No.:

AC-CP-270-1956

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Evidence—Finger-print may give opinion evidence

·  Evidence—Finger-print s—Relevant to identification even without corroboration

·  Evidence opinion evidence need not be from expert

Accused was convicted of embezzlement Opinion evidence of finger-print and handwriting experts was admitted.
Held: The finger-print expert may give opinion evidence as an expert.
Obiter dicta: (i) Finger-print evidence is relevant to identification even without corroboration
(ii) Opinion evidence on handwriting need not be by an expert.

Judgment

(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT V. EL TAYEB MAHMOUD GUMAA AND OTHERS

AC-CP-270-1956

Advocates: Abdin Ismail……… for accused No.3

      Ahmed Gumaa………. for accused Nos. 1 and 5

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. January 7, 1957:—There is an appeal against the conviction of Accused No. 1, El Tayib Mahmoud Gumaa under Penal Code, S. 35!, for the embezzlement of £E2,810.285 and the conviction of his brother, Accused No.5 , Nuh Mahmoud Gumaa under Penal Code, s. 179. This appeal is submitted by Advocate Ahmed Gumaa.

The learned advocate attacks the qualifications of P.W. 10, the finger print expert. He submits that he should not be considered as an expert, kind therefore his evidence should be ruled out.

This witness has been working as a finger-print expert in the Sudan Identification Bureau for 29 years, and his evidence was accepted in half a dozen cases by Sudan courts in similar cases. To say that he is not “expert” because he did not read all the modem books on finger-prints is too much. Identification by finger-prints by a person expert in such prints is allowed and may be sufficient even though the only evidence of identification. So is id by handwriting even without the aid of experts. See Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 347 ( 32ed., 1949). The court may act on finger-print experts without corroboration. See Phipson, Evidence 138 ( 19th ed., 1952).

In the case of Accused No. 1, corroboration was not lacking. This accused’ has been following a system which was clear in all the payments made by him while he ,was in charge of the Locust Campaign in the Northern Province and in the Blue Nile Province.

He admits he was preparing the lists and making payments in respect of the pay sheets which supported’ the evidence of the finger-print and handwriting experts. In handwriting it is not necessary that the evidence should be by ark expert. The explanations given by the accused are most unsatisfactory, and I believe that he was lucky that the court found that he was only answerable for the sum of £E2,8 10.285. I have no hesitation in confirming both the finding and sentence, although the sentence appears to be on the light side.

As regards Accused No.5 , it is clear from the evidence that he had an opportunity to .assist in faking pay sheets on October 9, 1956, in Khartoum, with a view to producing vouchers in support of the payment Order for £E2,500.000. He is a person who had previous conviction, and he was let off by the court lightly.

1, therefore, confirm both the finding and sentence.

There is an appeal by Advocate Abdin Ismail in respect of Accused

No.3 , Abdel Wahab Babikir Hassan. Although there is the evidence of the finger-print expert, there is no evidence to corroborate that this accused was following a system of fraud. The amount for which he was convicted is very small, i.e., £E3.96o. I do not , in the circumstances feel sure that he in fact embezzled only this small amount during they long period he was employed by the Agriculture Department.

I. therefore, give him the benefit of doubt and refuse the confirmation on the finding.

There is no appeal by Accused No. 2. Mahgoub Abdel Rahman, and Accused No.4 , Ahmed Mohamed Hassan. At any rate I have gone carefully into their cases and I am satisfied that their conviction is correct.

I, therefore, confirm both the finding and sentence in respect of them,

I must commend all those officers who took part in the prosecution of this case. The police officer, Ziada Satti , and finger-print expert, Fawzi Osman Fawzi. did a really hard piece of work. The summing-up by the committing magistrate. T. S. Cotran, presented to me a clear picture of the evidence against the accused in a very complicated case. The President of the court, Sayed Abdel Rahman El Akib, took great pains in sifting the evidence, and I am very grateful to them for making the job of the confirming authority easier.