Rakesh M Marigoudar¹, Chinmayi^2*, Chandrakanth H Hunagund³, Arun M⁴

 

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, SSIMS and RC, Davangere, INDIA.

²Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIMS, B.G. Nagar, INDIA.

³Professor, ⁴Professor and Head Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, J.S.S Medical College, JSS University, Mysore, INDIA.

Email: drchinmayi.y@gmail.com

 

RESULTS

In the present study finger prints were obtained from all the subjects. Total sample size was 500 (250 males and 250 females). Finger prints from all the 10 fingers were obtained and entered in the excel sheet. The data obtained was analyzed using SPSS for windows version 16.0 and the EPI info 3.5.1 windows version following results were drawn and interpreted.

 

Table 1: Showing general distribution of fingerprint patterns

Among the 500 subjects studied in this study, loops were the predominant fingerprint pattern (55.3%) followed by whorl (34.7%) and the least frequent pattern was arch (10%).

 

Table 2: Showing sex-wise distribution of fingerprint patterns

*Significant p <0.001*

In both the sexes the predominant finger print is the loop followed by whorl and then arch pattern. This study revealed that in the male population studied, loop pattern was the most prevalent (53.2%), followed by Whorl (41.5%) and then arch (5.3%). Females in the population studied showed higher incidence of loop pattern (57.4%), followed by whorl (28%) and the least being the arch (14.6%). In gender wise distribution the females showed prevalent loop and arch prints compared to males and the males showed highest whorls compared to females.

 

Table 3: Showing distribution of fingerprint patterns in both hands

 *Significant p <0.001

The male study group showed higher prevalence of loop in the left hand and whorl in both the hands as compared to females. The females showed high prevalence of loop compared to males in right hand and arch fingerprint in both the hands. There have been many studies done on the prevalence and distribution of various finger print patterns, similarly this study also analyzed the prevalence and distribution of patterns in the target population. The analysis revealed the following.

Table 4: Showing predominant finger print in left little finger

*Significant P<0.001*

 Loops were the predominant pattern in the prints of left little finger in both male and female, but males showed higher prevalence compared to females. The Females showed high prevalence of arch fingerprint compared to males.

 

Table 5: Showing predominant finger print in left ring finger

*Significant P<0.001*

Prints from the left ring finger were predominantly of whorl pattern in both the sexes, with 56.4% and 46% respectively, followed by loop and arch patterns.

 

Table 6: Showing predominant finger print in left middle finger

*Significant P<0.001*

Females showed higher percentage (23.6%) of arch pattern compared to whorls in the left middle finger.

 

Table 7: Showing predominant finger print in left index finger

*Significant P<0.001*

In left index finger, females showed higher prevalence of arch fingerprint pattern compared to male subjects.

 

Table 8: Showing predominant finger print in left thumb

*Significant P<0.001*

Analysis of the prints from the left thumb of males showed higher incidence of whorls followed by loops, while in females loops were more prevalent followed by whorl. Arch was the least common pattern in both the sexes.

 

 

 

 

Table 9: Showing predominant finger print in right thumb

*Significant P<0.001*

The right thumb prints showed higher percentage of whorls in males compared to loops. Females had higher percentage of loops compared to males.

Table 10: Showing predominant finger print in right index finger

*Significant P<0.001*

Males showed higher percentage of whorls compare to loops in the right index finger.

 

Table 11: Showing predominant finger print in right middle finger

*Significant P<0.001*

In right middle finger, females showed higher prevalence of loop and arch fingerprint patterns compared to males and males showed higher prevalence of whorl fingerprint pattern compared to females.

 

Table 12: Showing predominant finger print in right ring finger

*Significant P<0.001*

In prints of the right ring finger, males showed higher percentage of whorls (62.8%) than loops (34.8%).

 

Table 13: Showing predominant finger print in right little finger

*Significant P<0.001*

 In right little finger, loop and arch fingerprint patterns were the predominant patterns seen in females, and the whorl pattern was more prevalent in males.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

Comparison of finger prints is a universally accepted method of establishing identity of an individual. The main objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of Fingerprints and their gender wise distribution among the south Indian population and also to study the finger wise predominance of finger prints. In the present study, inkless fingerprint pad was used for recording the fingerprint patterns, as it is easy to carry and once the fingerprint is obtained, leaves no residues on the fingers. Nithin MD, et al.. done a study on fingerprint classification and their gender distribution among South Indian population ⁴ revealed higher percentage of loop (55.28%) in females when compared to males (49.32%). Whorl pattern of finger prints was seen in significantly higher numbers in both ring fingers than loop, and the present study is in agreement with these findings. Sangam MR, Krupadanam K. Anasuya K, done a study on south Indian population to determine the bilateral asymmetry and sex differences in distribution of finger print pattern ⁵, loops and arches were seen higher in the females than in the females. Whorls were more frequent in males than the females, which was similar to the present study. Loops were predominantly seen in the little finger, which was also agreement with the present study. In a study done by Nagesh KR, Sahoo P, Ashoka B on Determination of hand from a fingerprint ⁶ revealed that the whorl patterns were observed commonly in thumb, index and ring fingers with maximum in a ring finger in both the hands. The present study also revealed the whorl fingerprint pattern was predominant in left ring finger in both the sexes and right ring finger in males. Also the whorl was commonly found in both the thumb and right index finger of male sex, which was also agreement with the present study. Prateek Rastogi and Keerthi R Pillai have done a study on fingerprints in relation to gender and blood group ⁷ revealed that the Males have a higher incidence of whorls and females have a higher incidence of loops and the present study is also agreement with these findings. Katwal B, Timsinha S, Limbu BK et al... have done a study on Fingerprint analysis and gender predilection among medical students of Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital ⁸, revealed that the Significant increase in the frequency of loops was seen in the little finger followed by middle finger and higher percentage of whorls was observed on the ring finger. Highest preponderance of arches was present in index finger. The present study is also in agreement with these findings.

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions were drawn from our study

• General distribution of fingerprint pattern in this study is noted to be in the same order as described in the literature. i.e. highest Loops, moderate Whorl, and least Arch.
• Loop (57.4%) and Arch (14.6%) fingerprint was found to be more prevalent in females than that of males.
• The Whorl fingerprint is more prevalent in males (41.5%) compared to females (28.0%).
• The right hand showed prevalent Loop and Whorl fingerprints but the Arch fingerprint was more in left hand.
• In finger wise distribution of fingerprints the Loop fingerprint is being predominant in most of the fingers.
• The whorl fingerprint dominates the Loop fingerprint in the left ring finger in both the genders.
• The male group also showed that the Whorl fingerprint being dominant compared to Loop fingerprint in left thumb (50.4%), right thumb (49.6%), right index (47.2%) and right ring finger (62.8%).
• The Arch fingerprint being the least type, in females it has overriding the Whorl fingerprint in left little (19.6%) and left middle finger (23.6%).

Fingerprints are already been an established entity in the field of identification. Hence similar type of studies should be conducted on a larger group so as to increase the accuracy of prediction and to establish the individuality of a person.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to all the Medical students, staff members of the J.S.S University and other volunteers who have participants in this study.

 

REFERENCES

• Kumar A. Personal identity. In, Textbook of Forensic Medicine (Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology). 1^st ED. New Delhi: Avichal publishing company; 2011: 50.
• Nandy A. Identification of Individual, Identification from trace evidences and their other evidential values. In, Principles of Forensic Medicine including Toxicology.^3rd ED. Kolkata: New Central Book Agency (P) Ltd; 2010: 89,158-160,202.
• Nath S .Characteristic features of fingerprints. In, Fingerprint Identification. 1^st ED. New Delhi: Shiv Shakti Book Traders; 2010:25-35.
• MD Nithin, BM Balaraj, B Manjunatha, Mestri SC. Study of fingerprint classification and their gender distribution among South Indian Population. J Forensic Leg Med 2009;16(8):460-463.
• Sangam MR, Krupadanam K. Anasuya K.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.
• Nagesh KR, Sahoo P, Ashoka B. Determination of hand from a fingerprint. J Punjab Acad Forensic Med Toxicol 2012;12(2):82-6.
• Rastogi P and Pillai KR. A study of Fingerprints in Relation to Gender and Blood Group. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. 2010; 32(1): 11-14.
• Katwal B, Timsinha S, Limbu BK 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.