JUDGMENT : Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is the accused in S.C.14 of 1984 of the Sessions Court, Kottayam. He was charged under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code for having trespassed into the house of the deceased and committed her murder. The Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under S. 302 of the I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also found guilty under S. 449 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years, the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14-10-1983 at about 2.15 p.m. the accused committed house trespass in the house of deceased Ponnamma alias Aliamma and murdered her. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and marked Exts. P-1 to P. 19. M.Os. 1 to 16 were identified. On the defence side D.W. 1 was examined and Exts. X-1 and X-1(a) were marked. When questioned under S. 313 Crl.P.C. accused denied his complicity with the crime and took the stand that he has been falsely implicated. 3. The prosecution case is built upon circumstantial evidence. Apart from the motive for the crime, prosecution banks upon the evidence that the accused was seen in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, S. 27 recovery of the knife and his blood stained shirt and the evidence with regard to the finger prints. 4. P.W.2, husband of the deceased testified with regard to “the motive for the accused to perpetrate the crime. P.W.2 was not in the house when the horrific crime was committed against his wife. On 14-10-1983 P.W.2 went to Ponkunnam to attend to his business. His wife and children were in the house. At about 2.30 p.m.P.W.2 got information that his wife was admitted in the K.V.M.S. Hospital. He rushed to the hospital and found his wife lying dead. P.W.2 identified the wearing apparels and the gold ornaments belonging to his wife. On 14-10-1983 P.W.2 went to Ponkunnam to attend to his business. His wife and children were in the house. At about 2.30 p.m.P.W.2 got information that his wife was admitted in the K.V.M.S. Hospital. He rushed to the hospital and found his wife lying dead. P.W.2 identified the wearing apparels and the gold ornaments belonging to his wife. P.W.2 deposed that two months prior to the incident he saw the accused attempting to commit theft of coconuts from a coconut tree in his compound, that seeing him accused tried to run away, that he chased the accused and caught him and gave two blows, that the accused ran for some distance and swore vengeance upon him that on another occasion P.W.2 scolded the accused while he was cutting grass, that he got the grass gathered by the accused and retained it and on that occasion also accused threatened retaliation. 5. It was P.W.1 who lodged the first information statement before the police. P.W.1 resides approximately 600 feet south of the place of occurrence. On 14-10-1983 at about 2.15 p.m. P.W.1 while reading a weekly was informed by his elder brother's son Aype that he heard the barking of dog and cry from the house of P.W.2. P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the house of P.W.2. He saw P.W.4 Johnson on the way. P.W. 1 asked Johnson from where the cry was heard. Johnson pointed to the house of P.W.2 and said that the cry was heard from there. Immediately P.W.1 and P.W.4 Johnson went there and found P.W.2's wife lying dead with bleeding injuries. There was no response when P.W.1 called her as she was not in a position to speak. P.W. 1 sprinkled some water on her face and cried aloud and called his brother and wife. In a car Ponnamma was taken to K.V.M.S. Hospital. P.W. 1, P.W.4 and others accompanied the injured in the car. Doctor examined Ponnamma and pronounced her dead. Immediately P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged Ext. P-1 first information statement. 6. P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.2 and the deceased. In a car Ponnamma was taken to K.V.M.S. Hospital. P.W. 1, P.W.4 and others accompanied the injured in the car. Doctor examined Ponnamma and pronounced her dead. Immediately P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged Ext. P-1 first information statement. 6. P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.2 and the deceased. She deposed that her father P.W.2 did not go to their house to take his noon-meals, that her younger sisters and brother were not in the house as they had gone to the school that she along with some of her relatives went for a cinema, that her mother (deceased) did not accompany her as she awaited P.W.2 for his noon-meals, and that while she and others were proceeding to the cinema theatre she saw the accused on the way. P.W.3 saw P.W.4 alighting from a”bus. She stated that P.W.4 enquired to her where she was going and she informed him that they were going for a picture. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that while she was seeing the cinema P.W.4 came there and informed that her mother fell down. In the car which was brought by P.W.4 she and others proceeded to K.V.M.S. Hospital and found her mother lying dead. She identified the shirt and lunki worn by the accused as M.Os. 9 and 10 respectively. 7. P.W.4 while working in the nearby compound heard the barking of a dog from Ponnamma's house. After five minutes he heard a cry from that house. To ascertain what had happened P.W.4 proceeded to that house. Then he saw P.W.1 coming briskly from the southern side. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that P.W.1 had asked him whether he had heard a cry, that he replied that he heard a cry from the house of Ponnamma and that he and P.W.1 went to that house and saw Ponnamma lying injured in a pool of blood. P.W.1's evidence that he called Ponnamma and there was no response is also spoken to by P.W.4. Evidence of P.W.1 that he cried aloud and called his brother and wife is corroborated by P.W.4. Removal of the injured to the hospital in a car and the evidence of P.W.3 that she was informed by P.W.4 while she was seeing the cinema is also corroborated by P.W.4. 8. P.W.5 was working in the compound of Melapparambil Jose. Evidence of P.W.1 that he cried aloud and called his brother and wife is corroborated by P.W.4. Removal of the injured to the hospital in a car and the evidence of P.W.3 that she was informed by P.W.4 while she was seeing the cinema is also corroborated by P.W.4. 8. P.W.5 was working in the compound of Melapparambil Jose. He stated that at about 2.15 p.m. he saw the accused running in a perplexed and perturned manner and that he asked the accused where he was going, that the accused vaguely replied that he did not go anywhere and that thereafter the accused went through a tapioca garden. P.W.5 identified the lunki worn by the accused as M.O. 10. 9. P. W.6 stated that he saw the accused running through the tapioca plantation, that he called the accused twice, that he looked back and thereafter continued to run. P.W.6 stated that he informed P.W.9 Kunhachan that he saw the accused running, that as suggested by Kunhachan they proceeded to the accused's house, that Kunhachan called the accused twice, that accused's mother came out of the house and told them that the accused was not there. P.W.6 identified the lunki worn by the accused as M.O. 10. 10. P.W.7 stated that he saw the accused going to the compound of the deceased. He stated that accused after entering into the compound sat there pretending to answer calls of nature. He identified the shirt and lunki worn by the accused as M.Os. 9 and 10. He is also a witness to the recovery of M.O.11 knife and M.O.10 lunki as per Ext. P-2 mahazar. 11. P.W.8 deposed that it was he who sold M.O. 11 knife to the accused a week prior to the incident. P.W.9 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.6 that he had informed him about the accused running through the tapioca garden. It is also spoken to by P.W.9 that he and P.W.6 went to the house of the accused and called the accused and that the accused's mother informed them that he was not there. 12. P.W.9 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.6 that he had informed him about the accused running through the tapioca garden. It is also spoken to by P.W.9 that he and P.W.6 went to the house of the accused and called the accused and that the accused's mother informed them that he was not there. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the circumstantial evidence in the case is far from sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt He submitted that the motive set up by the prosecution is very feeble and even if it is assumed that there was some motive for the accused to wreak vengeance upon any one it can only be against P.W.2 and not against his wife. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.2's evidence would really show that the accused had threatened vengeance on two occasions when P.W.2 caught him red handed when he attempted to commit theft of coconuts and also when the grass gathered by him was taken away. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused threatened retaliation it cannot be said that the motive set up by the prosecution has failed to click. 13. P.W.3's evidence would show that her mother was alone there in the house when she and her relatives went for a cinema on that fateful day. P.W.3's evidence would also show that she saw the accused coming from the opposite direction. P.W.3 stated that she saw the accused going through the way she and others had just traversed. Counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 that the accused had to pass through the way to his house would show that his presence there even if her evidence is believed is not an incriminating circumstance. Prosecution does not rely upon the solitary evidence of P.W.3. 14. P.W.3 has identified the shirt worn by the accused as M.O.9 and lunki as M.O.10. There is no challenge of that part of the evidence of P.W.3 in cross examination. P.W.6's evidence shows that he knows the accused very well. He stated that he saw the accused running through the tapioca garden, that he called him twice and that the accused looked back and continued to run. P.W.6's evidence assumes very much importance. There is no challenge of that part of the evidence of P.W.3 in cross examination. P.W.6's evidence shows that he knows the accused very well. He stated that he saw the accused running through the tapioca garden, that he called him twice and that the accused looked back and continued to run. P.W.6's evidence assumes very much importance. P.W.6's evidence is corroborated by P.W.9 in all material particulars-Evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9 is that they went to the house of the accused and called him and his mother told them that he was not there. P.W.7 stated that the accused went to P.W.2's compound and that he saw him hiding there as if to answer calls of nature. This was immediately before the incident. The evidence of P.W.7 that he saw the accused hiding behind the coffee plant is definitely an incriminating circumstance against him. Identification of M.O.9 shirt worn by the accused by P.W.7 has not been challenged in cross examination. 15. The shirt and knife were recovered pursuant to the statement of the accused and as pointed out by him. P.W.7 is a witness in Ext. P-2 mahazar regarding the recovery of M.O.11 knife. P.W.7 stated that the knife was taken by the accused from the top of the door frame. P.W.15 stated that he saw the accused taking a shirt which was hidden under some stones from a compound. He identified the shirt as M.O.9. He is a (witness in Ext. P-11 mahazar. The analyst's report Ext. P-4 shows that the shirt was found stained with human blood of “O” group. It is significant to note that the blood stains found on blouse, braziers, saree and skirt of the deceased were found to be of “O” group on analysis. As the blood found on the shirt of the accused is of the same group as that found on the wearing apparel of the deceased much importance has to be attached to it and this being an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be lost sight of especially in view of the incontroverted evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 7 that the accused was wearing M.0.9 shirt when they saw him on the date of the incident. There is no allegation that the prosecution planted the shirt and knife to fabricate the evidence. 16. 3 and 7 that the accused was wearing M.0.9 shirt when they saw him on the date of the incident. There is no allegation that the prosecution planted the shirt and knife to fabricate the evidence. 16. Counsel for the accused submitted that the analyst did not find any blood stains on the knife and therefore the recovery evidence does not lead any where. Merely because blood stains were not seen on the knife prosecution case does not flounder as other circumstances are there establishing the guilt of the accused. The very fact that the accused's shirt was recovered as pointed but by him from a place where it was hidden and the very fact that it was found on analysis to have contained very same group of blood as found on the wearing apparels of the deceased would go a long way with other evidence in the case to establish the prosecution case. 17. The most important aspect of the evidence relied on by the prosecution is the Finger Prints’ Expert's evidence. The finger print found on the wall of the room of the deceased and the finger print of the accused were analysed by R.W. 16. Ext. P-16 scene mahazar prepared by P.W.19 would show that there were blood stains inside the house of the deceased. P.W.19 stated that the scene was preserved for examination of the finger print. P.W.14 photographed the finger print found at the scene. Ext. P-6 is the enlarged copy of the photograph and Ext. P-7 is the negative. He had also photographed the finger print of the accused from the finger print slip and enlarged the same. Ext.P-8 is the enlarged copy and Ext. P-9 is the negative. Ext. P-10 is the Finger Print Slip of the accused. P.W.16, Finger Print Expert has compared the finger print of the accused with the finger print found at the scene. Ext. P-12 is the report. The opinion given by P.W.16 in Ext. P-12 is to the effect that the finger print found on the wall marked as ‘MI’ was found to be identical with the left middle finger impression of the accused marked as ‘X’. P.W.16 stated that these impressions possessed identical ridge characteristics in their nature and relative positions. Ext. P-12 is the report. The opinion given by P.W.16 in Ext. P-12 is to the effect that the finger print found on the wall marked as ‘MI’ was found to be identical with the left middle finger impression of the accused marked as ‘X’. P.W.16 stated that these impressions possessed identical ridge characteristics in their nature and relative positions. P.W.16 stated that he had marked ten identical ridge characteristics in their nature and relative positions on the photographic enlargements of the finger impressions ‘MI’ and ‘X’. In view of the evidence of P.W.16 and Ext. P-12 that the blood stained finger print found at the scene compares favourably with that of the accused it has to be held that it is a very strong piece of evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 18. Counsel for the accused submitted that opinion of the finger print expert cannot be given much significance as at best it is only an opinion evidence, counsel relied on Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammed Isa Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammed Isa (1963) 3 S.C.R. 722 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1728 and contended that evidence given by handwriting expert can never be conclusive, because is, after all an opinion evidence. In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 415 it is held as follows: “The science of identification of foot-prints is no doubt a rudimentary science and much reliance cannot be placed on the result of such identification. The track evidence however, can be relied upon as a circumstance which, along with other circumstances, would point to the identity of the culprit thought by itself it would not be enough to carry conviction in the minds of the Court.” Though the Supreme Court held that the science of identification of foot prints in a rudimentary science it held that it can be considered along with other circumstances to identify the culprit. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1972) 2 MLJ. (S.C) 16: (1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.C) 16: (1972) I.S.C.J. 691: A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 975, where it was held that identification of finger prints has now developed into a science and the results derived there have reached a stage of exactitude. Finger Print evidence is accepted by the courts on the assumption that no two individuals have identical finger prints. (S.C) 16: (1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.C) 16: (1972) I.S.C.J. 691: A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 975, where it was held that identification of finger prints has now developed into a science and the results derived there have reached a stage of exactitude. Finger Print evidence is accepted by the courts on the assumption that no two individuals have identical finger prints. Scientific research and analysis lead to the conclusion that the probability for the existence of two identical fundamental principles of finger prints are: i. A finger prints is an individual characteristic; no two fingers have yet been found to possess identical ridge characteristics. ii. A finger print will remain unchanged during an individual life time: iii. Finger prints have general ridge patterns that permit them to be systematically classified (Criminalistics - An introduction to forensic Science. By Richard Saferstain Page 281.) Finger print evidence is a very valuable piece of evidence in any criminal investigation and its importance can never be underestimated. 19. No suggestion was put to the investigating officer that the accused's finger print was got on the wall of the house adopting any compelling or third degree methods. As the finger print found from the scene and the admitted finger print of the accused are of identical characteristics the prosecution can definitely rely on it and this evidence along with other pieces of evidence in the case are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 20. On going through the entire evidence we hold that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in its true perspective and has rightly held the accused guilty under sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. We hardly find any reason to interfere. In the result the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.