Analysis of Fingerprint Patterns among Central Indian Population- A Cross Sectional Study

Dr. Ninad Nagrale, Dr. Ranjit Ambad, Dr. Swapnil Patond, Dr. Rohan Gawali

¹Associate Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology,

Datta Meghe Medical College, Shalinitai Meghe Medical College and Research Centre Nagpur-441110.

²Associate Professor, Dept. of Biochemistry,

Datta Meghe Medical College, Shalinitai Meghe Medical College and Research Centre Nagpur-441110.

³Associate Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College,

Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha-442001.

⁴Assistant Professor Dept. of Anatomy Datta Meghe Medical College,

Shalinitai Meghe Medical College and Research Centre Nagpur-441110.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: ambad.sawan@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Background: A person's identity means understanding positively who a given individual is. Human identification is a universal method focused predominantly on finger printing and based on scientific principles.

Aims and objectives: To study of fingerprint patterns among Central Indian population. Material and Methods: This prospective study was carried out to determine the prevalence of the type of fingerprints in each finger and their gender distribution among 250 individuals of Central Indian origin comprising 125 males and 125 females. Results: The general distribution of fingerprint patterns in the present study is noted in the same order as defined in the literature. Largest loops (55.3%), moderate whorl (34.7%) and least arch (10.0%) respectively. It was found that loop (57.4 %) and arch (14.6 %) fingerprints were more prevalent in women than in men. In males (41.5 per cent), the Whorl fingerprint is more prevalent compared to females (28.0 per cent). Conclusion: The right hand shows typical fingerprints of the loop and whorl, and the arch fingerprint was more in the left hand.

KEYWORDS: Fingerprints, Finger wise distribution, Gender, loops, least arch.

INTRODUCTION:

Identification means determination of a person's individuality based on certain physical features that are peculiar to that person. Identifying both the living and the deceased is something in which medical evidence may play an important role and is also the only evidence that helps to determine an individual's identity. The analysis of fingerprints as an identification tool is often referred to as Dactylography or Dactyloscopy and is also known at present as the identification system of Henry-Galton. Impressions of patterns created by the papillary or epidermal ridges of the fingertips are finger prints.

Generally, these ridges relate to a papillary or friction ridge¹. The ridges have a definite shape and occur in variable arrangements or patterns, each having unique individual information from which it is possible to make positive identification. Around 12-16 weeks of intrauterine life, the ridge pattern of fingers emerges and formation is completed by 24 weeks. Throughout life, and even after death, finger print patterns are special and remain unchanged until the skin decomposes². But in certain cases, in some unusual modifications to fingerprint ridges, the fingerprints change, like deep wounds or bruises that penetrate all layers of the epidermis and certain diseases such as leprosy. Fingerprint is the successful identification method; in the current work, an attempt has been made to scrutinise their prevalence and distribution of gender and also fingerprint distribution in each finger³. This research will help to use fingerprints as an essential aid in deciding the wise distribution of gender and fingerprints, thereby improving the authenticity of fingerprints in the identification of crime and criminals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

To study of fingerprint patterns among Central Indian population.

MATERIAL AND METHOD:

The thesis was carried out at the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Datta Meghe Medical College, Nagpur, during the period from July 2020 to September 2020 after obtaining approval from the institutional ethics committee. The research was carried out on 250 individuals (125 male and 125 female) comprising Central Indian students and employees of Datta Meghe Medical College, Nagpur and the general population of Central Indian origin. Prior to taking the fingerprints, informed written consent was obtained from the subjects. Students less than 18 years of age and those with leprosy, electrical damage and exposure to radiation known to cause permanent fingerprint pattern deficiency were removed. Using an inkless fingerprint pad, the finger prints were collected. To extract dirt and grease, the subject was asked to wash and dry her hands. The thumbs were rolled towards the subject’s body and the fingers were rolled away from the body, i.e. the thumb in fingers out method, "the finger bulbs were then rolled on the inkless fingerprint pad." Precautions have been taken to prevent smudging. The rolled impressions of each finger were then obtained on the proforma in the allotted space for that finger. In this way, the prints of ten fingers were prepared for each and every person. Details such as name, sex and age were noted after the fingerprints were obtained. With the aid of a magnifying glass, the fingerprint patterns were analysed and were classified as: Loops, Whorls and Arches based on the appearance of ridge lines according to Henry's classification.

RESULTS:

Finger prints were collected from all the participants in the current sample. 250 (125 males and 125 females) was the overall sample size. Finger prints were taken from all 10 fingers and included in the excel sheet. Using SPSS for windows, the data collected was analysed and the conclusions were drawn and interpreted. Loops were the dominant fingerprint pattern (55.3 %) followed by whorl (34.7 %) among the 500 subjects analysed in this study, and arch (10 %) was the least frequent pattern. The prevalent finger print in both sexes is the loop followed by whorl and then arch shapes. This study showed that the loop pattern was the most prevalent in the male population surveyed (53.2 %), followed by Whorl (41.5 %) and then arch (5.3 %). Females in the analysed population reported higher loop pattern incidence (57.4 %), followed by whorl (28 %) and arch (14.6 %) the least. The females showed prevalent loop and arch prints in gender wise distribution compared to males and the males showed maximum whorls compared to females. Compared to women, the male study group displayed a greater prevalence of loops in the left hand and whorls in both hands. The females displayed high loop prevalence in both hands relative to males in the right hand and arch fingerprint. Several studies have been carried out on the prevalence and distribution of different finger print patterns, and the prevalence and distribution of patterns in the target population has also been examined in this report. The following was found in the study. Loops were the prevalent pattern in both male and female left little finger prints, but males displayed greater prevalence compared to females. Compared to males, the females displayed high arch fingerprint prevalence. In both sexes, with 56.4% and 46% respectively, prints from the left ring finger were mainly whorl patterns, accompanied by loop and arch patterns. Compared to whorls in the left middle finger, females displayed a greater %age (23.6 %) of the arch pattern. Females displayed a greater prevalence of arch fingerprint patterns in the left index finger relative to male subjects. Examination of the left thumb prints of males revealed a higher frequency of whorls accompanied by loops, whereas whorls were more prevalent in females. In both sexes, the arch was the least common pattern. Compared to loops, the proper thumb prints showed a greater %age of whorls in males. In contrast with males, females had a larger number of loops. Compared with loops in the right index finger, males displayed a greater %age of whorls. Females showed higher loop and arch fingerprint pattern prevalence in the right middle finger compared to males and males showed higher whorl fingerprint pattern prevalence compared to females. Males displayed a higher proportion of whorls (62.8 %) than loops (34.8 %) in prints of the right ring finger. The predominant patterns seen in females were the right little finger, loop and arch fingerprint patterns, and the whorl pattern was more prevalent in males.

DISCUSSION:

A widely recognised method of determining an individual's identity is the comparison of finger prints. The main objective of this research was to determine the prevalence of fingerprints among the Central Indian population and their gender-wise distribution, as well as to study the finger-wise predominance of fingerprints. In the current research, the inkless fingerprint pad was used to record fingerprint patterns, as it is easy to hold and leaves no residue on the fingers once the fingerprint is collected. Nithin M et al⁴ conducted a study on the classification of fingerprints and their gender distribution among the population of South India found a higher %age of loops in females (55.28 %) compared to males (49.32 %). In both ring fingers, the Whorl pattern of finger prints was seen in slightly higher numbers than loop, and the current research is in line with these results. In order to determine the bilateral asymmetry and sex differences in finger print pattern distribution, loops and arches were seen higher in the females than in the males, Sangam M et al⁵ conducted a study on the South Indian population. In males, whorls were more frequent than in females, which was close to the current research. In the little finger, which was also in accordance with the current research, loops were mainly seen. In a study conducted by Nagesh K et al⁶ on Hand Determination from a fingerprint, it was found that whorl patterns were commonly observed in both hands with thumb, index and ring fingers with a maximum in a ring finger. The present study also found that the whorl fingerprint pattern in both sexes was predominant in the left ring finger and in males in the right ring finger. The whorl was also widely discovered in both the male sex thumb and right index finger, which was also in line with the present research. A research on fingerprints in relation to gender and blood group was performed by Rastogi P et al⁷ which showed that males have a higher incidence of whorls and females have a higher incidence of loops, and these results are also consistent with the current study. A research on fingerprint analysis and gender prediction among medical students from the Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Katwal B et al⁸ showed that the major increase in the frequency of loops was seen in the small finger followed by the middle finger and on the ring finger was observed a higher %age of whorls. The largest preponderance of arches in the index finger was present. The present analysis is in accordance with these results as well.

CONCLUSION:

Our analysis reached the following conclusions. It is noted that the general distribution of fingerprint patterns in this research is in the same order as defined in the literature. Highest Loops, Mild Whorl, and Fewer Arch. Fingerprint Loop (57.4%) and Arch (14.6%) were found to be more prevalent in females than in males. In males (41.5 per cent), the Whorl fingerprint is more prevalent compared to females (28.0 per cent). The right hand revealed the predominant fingerprints of Loop and Whorl, but the left hand was more of the Arch fingerprint. The Loop fingerprint is prevalent in most fingers in the finger-wise distribution of fingerprints. In both genders, the whorl fingerprint occupies the Loop fingerprint of the left ring finger. The male group also found that the Whorl fingerprint was dominant in the left thumb (50.4 %), right thumb (49.6 %), right index (47.2 %) and right ring finger (62.8 %) compared to the Loop fingerprint. The Arch fingerprint is the least sort, with the Whorl fingerprint in the left (19.6 %) and left middle finger (23.6 %) overriding in females. In the field of identification, fingerprints are already an existing body. Similar types of studies should also be performed on a wider population to improve the accuracy of prediction and to assess a person's individuality.

REFERENCES:

1. Kumar A. Personal identity. Textbook of Forensic Medicine (Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology). 1^st ED. New Delhi: Avichal publishing company; 2011: 50.

2. Nandy A. Identification of Individual, Identification from trace evidences and their other evidential values. Principles of Forensic Medicine including Toxicology. 3^rd ED. Kolkata: New Central Book Agency (P) Ltd; 2010: 89, 158-160, 202.

3. Nath S. Characteristic features of fingerprints. Fingerprint Identification. 1^st ED. New Delhi: Shiv Shakti Book Traders; 2010:25-35.

4. Nithin M et al. Study of fingerprint classification and their gender distribution among South Indian Population. J Forensic Leg Med 2009; 16(8):460- 463.

5. Sangam M et al. A study of fingerprints: bilateral asymmetry and sex difference in the region of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2011; 5(3):597-600.

6. Nagesh K et al. Determination of hand from a fingerprint. J Punjab Acad Forensic Med Toxicol 2012;12(2):82-6.

7. Rastogi P et al. A study of Fingerprints in Relation to Gender and Blood Group. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. 2010; 32(1): 11-14.

8. Katwal B et al. Fingerprint analysis and gender predilection among medical students of Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital. International Journal of Research and Review. 2017; 4(7):62-66.

Received on 21.11.2020 Modified on 30.12.2020

Research J. Pharm.and Tech 2021; 14(11):5871-5873.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.01048