(CRIMINAL REVISION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. PATHI FAKHRI

AC-CR-REV-233-1966

Principles

·  Evidence—Fingerprints—Conviction based only on fingerprints evidence without corroboration is wrong

Conviction which is based only on the fingerprints expert’s evidence without any other corroborative evidence is wrong.

Judgment

Advocate: Ibra him Ahmed Ibrahim for the accused

Salah E. Hassarr J. (By authority of the Chief Justice), September 29, 1966: - have decided to quash the findings and sentence. The whole evidence upon which the conviction is based is the opinion of the finger print expert of the Sudan Government. It stands alone without any other corroboration.

In my opinion such a conviction is wrong. In the first place even if the expert opinion is correct it is not conclusive because it has not yet been scientifically established that no two persons have identical fingerprints. The possibility is remote but the doubt is still there. Moreover the finger prints can be valuable evidence of identification only and in this case if we be1ic the evidence of the finger print expert it proves no other than the fact that the prints on the broken glass are those of accused; but whether it was accused who broke the glass or whether it was accused who committed the housebreaking or theft are things which need to be proved.

Usually the Fiche of the accused and its content is prima facie evidence of previous convictions but if accused disputes any entry in the Fiche it must be proved by producing a certified copy of the sentence or warrant of commitment to prison or a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the prison in which the punishment was inflicted (Criminal Court Circular No. ii). If the finger prints were conclusive there would have been no need for all this trouble

Editor’s Note: See Sudan Government v. Farah El Doud Gouroun, HC-CR-REV-28 (1962) S.L.J.R. 174.