28 from an open place, accessible to the public, between the period when the door had been opened by PW-5 till the arrival of the investigating agency. While collecting chance fingerprints, no fingerprints of the persons present/ neighbours, or other members of the household, were taken in order to eliminate such prints. PW-3, PW-5, and PW-24 were cross-examined on this account. They deposed that the fingerprints of others to whom the place was accessible, were not taken. With regard to the report (Ex. P84) prepared by the finger-print expert, PW 24 K. K. Dwivedi while conducting the analysis of the fingerprints, some concerns were pointed out. Firstly, failure to describe the method/procedure for lifting of the prints; secondly failure to obtain elimination prints of other persons, for which no explanation has been provided by the police; thirdly, that the expert was unable to provide an explanation about the fact that none of the fingerprints analysed matched those of any of the deceased persons; and fourthly, the expert did not explain why the process under the Madhya Pradesh Police Rules regarding dissection of fingerprint of corpses i.e., Rule 824, was not followed while obtaining the prints of the deceased persons. It was further urged that the expert did not provide a robust process for analysis. The analysis described by fingerprint expert PW-24 claims to rely on an 8-point method. The method followed by PW-24 merely describes Level I of the ACEV Method (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification Method), used by investigating agencies across jurisdictions. Level 2 and 3 of the ACE-V method was not followed. The 8-point matching system, followed for the analysis, was argued to be insufficient and not in compliance with such method. Counsel relied on Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh24 to argue that the question of confirmation bias in this regard cannot be ruled out, given that the prints of the accused were not anonymised while providing such information to the expert analysing the fingerprints. 24 (2021) 4 SCC 345 (para 25, 38-41, 43)