60 24 on 06.07.2011 which was verified by the former vide letter dated 11.07.2011. The prosecution relied on these findings to corroborate the presence of the appellants at the crime scene. 112. Interestingly, PW-24 KK Dwivedi in his chief examination has stated that letter no. AC Branch/E/80/11 dated 20.06.2011 was sent by Finger Print Branch Indore to MIG Police Station for comparison of chance fingerprints with the fingerprints of family members/suspects. However, his cross-examination reveals no such letter was on the record. The cross-examination also shows that he did not obtain fingerprints of any other person (including family members of the deceased) or article that was present at the place of the incident, for the purpose of comparison - a point which has been urged by the counsels on behalf of the appellants, laboriously. He also deposed that there was neither a mark of the whole palm on the door, nor bloody fingerprints on the door; and the other fingerprints available on the door were unfit for lifting. 113. The appellants’ counsel questioned the circumstances relating to the fingerprint evidence, on grounds such as (i) absence of any elimination print; (ii) irregularity in obtaining the appellant’s fingerprints; (iii) non-examination of constable Dinesh (who collected the fingerprints of the deceased for the process of elimination) by the prosecution; (iv) the absence of covering letter, along with the fingerprint expert’s report, when produced in court; and (v) the fingerprints of the appellants were not procured in accordance with law, as there was no compliance with Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. 114. This court would take up the last argument, at the outset. In Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi37, it was held that the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, were not mandatory, but rather directory, and that they only affirm the bona fides of the sample-taking (of the fingerprints of an accused) and eliminate the possibility of evidence fabrication. This court however, made 37 (2018) 8 SCC 24