Saif Ali Khan attack case: The curious case of mismatched fingerprints

The recently filed charge sheet—spanning over 1600 pages—in the Saif Ali Khan attack case by Bandra police confirms mid-day’s exclusive report published on January 26. As reported, crucial fingerprint samples collected from inside Khan’s flat, where he was allegedly attacked by Bangladeshi national Shariful Islam Shehzad, did not match the accused.

Sources had earlier revealed to mid-day that 19 samples were sent to the State CID’s Fingerprint Bureau, and none matched the suspect. The charge sheet now confirms this, with CID’s fingerprint analysis included in the official documentation. It clearly states that 20 fingerprint samples collected from various parts of the crime scene were either unidentifiable or unfit for forensic comparison.

Shariful Islam was taken to Bhabha Hospital for a medical check-up before presenting him in court. File Pic/Anurag Ahire

“Out of 20 chance prints, seven developed on the black bathroom door, two on the sliding bedroom door, and two on the cupboard door—all were found not identical with any of the fingerprints from the impression slips of Shahid Shabbir Sayyed (suspect) and Shariful Islam Shehzad (arrested),” the report states.

It further notes that the fingerprints were also run through the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) and the Automated Multi-Modal Biometric Identification System (AMBIS), but none matched any fingerprints of previously arrested or convicted individuals in the NCRB or Maharashtra Fingerprint Bureau databases.

Regarding the remaining ten prints—five fingerprints and one palm print from the black bathroom door, one from a wooden door, and three from the marble and wall of the bathroom—the report states these did not show a sufficient number of ridge details and were unfit for comparison or practical use.

However, the charge sheet includes another CID report confirming that a single left palm print found on the 8th floor of the building matched the accused. “Out of three chance prints, one palm print developed on the wooden door (8th-floor staircase) was identical with the left palm impression of Shariful Islam Shehzad (arrested),” the report notes.

Two other prints from the 9th-floor wooden door were also found unfit for analysis due to insufficient ridge detail. The charge sheet also includes another fingerprint bureau report that confirms matches with two of Khan’s domestic staff—Nilesh Hari Gawade and Hemlal Nyaupane. Legal experts say the absence of the accused’s fingerprints from the actual crime scene could weaken the prosecution’s case.

“The integrity of forensic evidence, particularly a matched fingerprint supported by expert analysis, is crucial for conviction. Any inconsistencies in reports will be used by the defence to highlight discrepancies and weaken the prosecution’s case,” said Advocate Trivankumar Karnani, a criminal lawyer at the Bombay High Court.

He added, “If forensic reports are inconclusive or contradictory, it becomes difficult for the prosecution to rely solely on them to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), formerly the Indian Evidence Act, forensic evidence is key to establishing scientific credibility. Any errors or contradictions in the charge sheet stage will be scrutinised during trial.”

When asked, DCP Zone 9 Dixitkumar Gedam clarified, “Whether it’s the crime scene or post-arrest, we do not collect fingerprint samples ourselves. We inform the concerned agencies, who collect, analyse, and submit reports.”

Despite the fingerprint mismatch, police maintain they have multiple pieces of strong evidence against the accused. These include CCTV facial recognition reports, which allegedly match Shariful, and identification by one of Khan’s domestic staff during a parade. However, Once the photo is leaked before the identification parade, as the accused’s image had already circulated widely on social media, the reliability of identification is always questionable for defece in any case.

Karnani stated, “The prosecution will likely conduct a fresh in-court identification during the trial to strengthen their case, which the defence will cross-examine thoroughly.” DCP Gedam said, “We are confident in our case and have multiple forms of evidence against the accused. It’s a watertight case.”

The charge sheet also mentions that mobile tower location data places the accused at the building on the day of the attack. His employer has confirmed his presence there, adding to the circumstantial evidence. Police have also recovered the clothes allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the incident. Meanwhile, Shariful has filed a bail application through his lawyer, Sangram Jadhav. The matter is likely to be heard by the sessions court on April 17.