Superimposition test – It is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence  - Superimposition technique, cannot be regarded as infallible - This leads us to the question of the propriety of relying upon the superimposition test – Contention that superimposition technique is not a tangible piece of evidence - We find ourselves unable to agree with this view - There cannot be any dispute that evidence on superimposition is also based on experts’ opinion -  Use of the superimposition technique in Indian investigations for identification purposes is not a new phenomenon - It is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence -  This is in line with the settled practice of the Courts, which generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstance, given its fallibility - This is particularly true for the superimposition technique, which cannot be regarded as infallible - Criminal Trial  - IPC,  S. 302, 364 and 201.   

Held,Hold that the High Court was justified in observing that a superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body, because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification, however, the High Court rightly accepted the expert testimony on this aspect since in the instant case, the superimposition test was merely one piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in order to strengthen its case. Held further, It is evident from the testimony of PW34, Dr. Jayaprakash, who conducted the superimposition test, that the test was conducted by using three different methods, i.e. video superimposition, visual observation, and dental trait superimposition, and in spite of challenges to the reliability of such evidence, the Courts, after carefully assessing the methodology adopted, accepted the finding reached by PW34 regarding the identification of the body, and we see no error in such conclusion reached by the Courts. 2019 SCeJournal 471

Superimposition test –  Different methods  - It is evident from the testimony of PW34 who conducted the superimposition test, that the test was conducted by using three different methods, i.e. video superimposition, visual observation, and dental trait superimposition, and in spite of challenges to the reliability of such evidence, the Courts, after carefully assessing the methodology adopted, accepted the finding reached by PW34 regarding the identification of the body, and we see no error in such conclusion reached by the Courts - Criminal Trial  - IPC,  S. 302, 364 and 201.       2019 SCeJournal 471