20 despite both departments being in Indore. The fingerprint expert’s report (Ex. P84) is not credible because elimination of the deceased’s prints was not explained by PW-24 KK Dwivedi (fingerprint expert) or in his report Ex. P84. Only the final conclusion of elimination has been written about. There is no scientific evidence that fingerprints are unique for all individuals and therefore, heavy reliance cannot be placed on it. It is only corroborative in nature. Further, the counsel highlighted that the fingerprints were not lifted from the knives, pistol and ornaments seized from the accused. Counsel relied on Mohd. Aman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan12 and Chandran @ Surendran & Anr. v. State of Kerala13, for arguing that fingerprint proof cannot ipso facto lead to conviction. 37. Learned senior counsel then argued that the shoeprint report (Ex. P125) mentioned that the chance shoeprints were incomplete and unclear, despite which the expert proceeded with the examination and came to a finding of the prints being identical to F6 (right), G4 (right), and H3 (which does not specify which side, as per Ex. 125). Rahul’s foot impression was not taken as per Section 4 read with Section 2(a) of Identification of Prisoners Act along with Rule 822(4) of MP Police Regulations Rules. It was urged that this was important in proving that Rahul wore shoe size 44. PW-5 mentioned that there was a lot of blood on the floor. Elimination prints of shoes were not collected from PW-5 or anyone else present at the scene of occurrence. At this point it is worth noting that among others, five persons had entered the place of occurrence to act as witnesses to the inquest proceedings. The scene of crime report (Ex. P77) mentioned that the shoeprints were bloodied and partial in nature. All these cast doubts about authenticity and reliability of the footprint expert’s report. 38. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel arguing pro bono on behalf of the appellant Neha, supplemented the contentions of Ms. Anjana Prakash. He 12 (1997) 10 SCC 44 13 (1991) Supp (1) SCC 39