62 present at the crime scene; they also highlighted that fingerprint were not lifted from the knives, pistol and ornaments seized from the accused. In the opinion of this court, nothing material turns on this aspect. In a recent judgment - which the appellants relied on-, i.e. Hari Om @ Hero v State of UP 39 this court acquitted the accused, on the ground that the fingerprint expert’s opinion, even if accepted, would could not have been the sole basis of conviction. What is important is whether the crime scene was secured, and whether the lifting of prints was witnessed. On both counts, the prosecution evidence is credible and worthy of acceptance. These are also corroborated by the testimony of PW-21, the Senior Scientific Officer, and the crime scene report dated 20.06.2021 (Ex. P77) tendered by him. 117. The other aspect, relating to fingerprint evidence is that the fingerprint report (Ex. P84) was prepared on 11.07.2011. Ex. P85 to Ex. P92 are photographs of the fingerprints lifted (these were annexed to the fingerprint report Ex. P84). The fingerprint report was enclosed with a letter (Ex. P93). Given that the expert deposed to lifting the prints, which were corroborated by the three witnesses (PW-3, PW-5 and PW-9) apart from the IO, the credibility of this circumstance, i.e., the lifting of the prints from the crime scene, their match with the sample prints of the accused, and the expert’s testimony stand proved. The appellant’s arguments questioning the credibility of this part, on the ground of delay in the report, the prints being chance prints, lack of elimination prints, or the crime scene not being shown to have been secured, etc, are insubstantial and are rejected. IX. Circumstances relating to injuries on the deceased 118. The post-mortem report (Ex. P44) indicates the extent of injuries on the bodies of the deceased. Megha (aged 46) had a firearm injury on the forehead and 4 deep stab wounds (abdomen, shoulder and chest). Rohini (aged 76) had 39 (2021) 4 SCC 345