[1999] PNGLR 135

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[national court of justice]

THE STATE

V

JACK KUMUL URE KORE

madang: sawong j
12, 13, 16 August 1999

Criminal law – Evidence – Identity – Armed Robbery – Finger prints found on vehicle used in armed robbery-

Facts

The accused was charged with two counts of armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty and gave unsworn evidence from the dock that he was away in his village in Chimbu, at the material time of the offence.

Held

1.	Evidence of fingerprints alone is sufficient evidence of identity to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt: R v Koito Gascutari [1967-68] PNGLR 217 applied.

2.	Whilst sworn statement from the dock is evidence, it is however evidence of less weight and less credibility because such evidence is untested under cross-examination.

3.	There is no other credible explanation as to how the accused fingerprints were left on the doorknob of the stolen car. The only conclusion is that the accused left the fingerprint on the doorknob. Hence, guilty as charged.

Papua New Guinea case cited

R v Koito Gascutari [1967-68] PNGLR 217.

Counsel

J Wala, for the State.
D Sakumai, for the accused.

16 August, 1999

SAWONG J. This case came before me on an indictment containing two counts of armed robbery against the accused.

Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. There is ample evidence that on 9 February 1997 an armed robbery was committed upon Ben Howen at the Balasigo market where a vehicle driven by Ben Howen was stolen from the said Ben Howen. The said vehicle was a Nissan Navara 4x4, silver in colour bearing registration number ZHB 046. 

There is ample evidence that the said vehicle was used to commit another armed robbery on the same day, a short while later, but on a different victim.

That robbery was committed upon a trade store. In this latter robbery cash money of K3000.00 and other valuable properties were stolen. The sole issue is of identity, that is whether the accused committed the crimes.

Upon this issue the only evidence tendered by the State was that the accused’s fingerprint had been found upon the outside part of one of the doors of this said vehicle. The accused was interrogated by Detective Constable Gabe on the 26 January 1998. The accused told Gabe in his record of interview that at the time of said robberies, he was at his village in Kagul in the Simbu Province. In his unsworn statement he maintained that version and said he knew nothing of the said robberies. The inference from all these are that he had never been in or on the said vehicle or touched the said vehicle.

The expert evidence was given by Wilson Hum, a Sergeant of Police based at the Madang Police Station. His qualification as an expert was unchallenged. He is a member of the police scientific unit in Madang, which involves, inter alia, obtaining and comparing latent finger print impressions and inked finger print impressions of suspects. He has been in that job for over 15 years and has performed this task many times. He described the finger print method, which involves identification of persons by means of the details or characteristics of papillary, or ridges of the inner surfaces of the fingers, palms of the hands etc, the patterns of which are unique to each individual person.

Sergeant Hum gave evidence of attending the scene where the vehicle had been abandoned, seeing the vehicle there, inspecting it there at the scene and then authorising it to be taken to the police station for further examination of both the exterior and the interior parts of the said vehicle. In the course of such an examination he found some latent finger impressions on the front off-sider’s door of the said vehicle. The latent finger print impressions were located directly under the doorknob of the said door. After developing that latent finger print impression, Sergeant Hum, lifted it off by means of finger print adhesive tape and placed it (the lifting tape) on to a white finger print impression-lifting card. He then completed other details on the reverse side of the form. After completing the details he registered it in the official register book kept for such purpose. The next day, that is on the 10 February 1997, he handed the card to Sergeant Major Hanlau.

Mr. Hum gave evidence, that nothing much happened in relation that particular item until on or about 30 October 1997. He gave evidence that on 30 October 1997, the accused was held in custody and was brought to the Yomba Police Station. He said that on that date, under his control and supervision, policemen from his unit, (the scientific unit) obtained the accused’s photographs and fingerprints. This was a normal police procedure when a person is arrested.

The Sergeant said that on 15 December 1997, he conducted a comparison and examination of the accused’s inked finger printer impressions, which had been obtained on the 30 October 1997 with the earlier latent finger print impressions obtained from the said vehicle. He said upon doing so, he found that the latent finger print impressions matched with the inked finger print impression of the accused left finger ring. He said that he found 16 matching points from these examinations from which he concluded that the latent finger print impressions found on the said vehicle were that of the accused.

It was submitted by Mr Sakumai that there was no evidence that the inked fingerprints impressions were the same ones that was handed over to Sergeant Hum to examine and compare with the latent finger print impressions. That being the case, it was submitted that the State had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I do not accept Mr Sakumai’s submission. Sergeant Hum gave evidence that the accused’s inked finger impressions were obtained in his presence and supervision. The Sergeant gave evidence that he was present with his members when the said inked finger print impression was obtained from the accused.

There are two legal issues that are relevant and applicable in the present case. The first is that evidence of fingerprints alone is sufficient evidence of identity to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt: See R v Koito Gascutari [1967-68] PNGLR 217. The second is that an unsworn statement from the dock, although is evidence, is not of much weight nor of much credibility. The reason is quiet simple, because such evidence has not been tested under cross-examination.

In the present case, the evidence is that the latent finger print impressions found on the doorknob of the stolen vehicle matched that of the accused.

There is no other explanation as to how the accused’s finger was left on the said vehicle, where the accused says he was in the village at the relevant and material day. In other words there is/are no other hypothesis as to how the accused’s finger print would have been on the vehicle. The only conclusion, in my view is that the accused left his fingerprint on the vehicle.

I find that Sergeant Hum’s evidence has not been destroyed at all. I find that the accused was simply trying to distance himself from his involvement in the commission of the robberies. I therefore do not accept his evidence.

I find that on all evidence, that the accused was involved in the commission of the two crimes. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. I therefore find him guilty and convict on both counts.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor.
Lawyer for the accused: Public Solicitor.