J Dey Murder case: Matching fingerprint not substantial evidence says court

The Defence counsel for Satish Kalia, a convict in journalist Jyotirmoy Dey's murder case had raised suspicion on the recovery of the firearm which Satish had used to Kill J Dey, as the police had not taken the fingerprints of the accused to match it with the arm.

Police had recovered the arm from the house of another convict Anil Waghmode. The court, however, had rubbished the defense's claim saying the law doesn't mandate them to take fingerprints.

Kalia, on June 11, 2011, along with three other convicts, had shot five rounds at J Dey, of which one had hit Dey. He was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was declared brought dead.

The recovery of the firearm used to kill J Dey was the most vital piece of evidence gathered, apart from the confessions that helped the prosecution.

The defense counsel for the prime accused — Rohee Tangappan alias Satish Kalia — said that the police did recover the firearm from the accused, but did not match it with his fingerprints. "The failure of the prosecution to take the fingerprints from the revolver and compare the same with the fingerprint of Satish Kalia is problematic because this doesn't establish a connection between the accused and the use of the revolver."

The court, however, was of the view that it is not mandated by law. "Fingerprint is not a substantive piece of evidence. Such evidence can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record. Therefore, merely because the fingerprints on the revolver were not matched, the recovery of the revolver at the instance of Satish cannot be doubted."

J DEY MURDER

The defense counsel for the prime accused — Rohee Tangappan alias Satish Kalia — said that the police did recover the firearm from the accused, but did not match it with his fingerprints.