Evidentiary Value of Experts Opinion under Law

By
Harinder Singh,
Department of Law,
Punjabi University, Patiala,
E-mail-harrysingh213@gmail.com
Mob: 9417244725

ABSTRCT

Law of evidence allows a person who is a witness to state the facts related to
either to a fact in issue or to relevant fact, but not his inference. It applies to both criminal
law and civil law. The opinion of any person other than the judge by whom the fact has to
be decided as to the existence of the facts in issue or relevant facts are as a rule, irrelevant
to the decision of the cases to which they relate for the most obvious reasons- for this
would invest the person whose opinion was proved with the character of a judge. The rule
however, is not without its exceptions. If matters arise in our law which concern other
sciences or faculties, we commonly apply for the aid of that science or faculty which it
concerns. The expert witness is, thus, an exception to the exclusionary rule and is
permitted to give opinion evidence. The Judge is not expected to be an expert in all the
fields-especially where the subject matters involves technical knowledge. He is not capable
of drawing inference from the facts which are highly technical. In these circumstances he
needs the help of an expert- who is supposed to have superior knowledge or experience in
relation to the subject matter. This qualification makes the latters evidence admissible in
that particular case though he is no way related to the case. Because an expert has an
advantage of a particular knowledge vis--vis a judge who is not equipped with the
technical knowledge and hence not capable of drawing an inference from the facts
presented before him.
Key Words: Forensic Science, Evidence, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Technology,
Development etc.

1. INTRODUCTION

An Expert is one who has devoted time and study to a special branch of learning,
and thus is especially skilled on those points on which he is asked to state his opinion. His
evidence on which points is admissible, to enable the court to come to a satisfactory
conclusion. The opinion of expert is only opinion evidence. It does not help the court in
interpretation. Expert may be so many types i.e. legal expert, medical expert, technical
expert etc. Expert opinion does not involve opinion at all. Expert evidence goes the step
further then a lay witness. There are occasions, where the judge cannot access the evidence
for itself because evidence external of the prior evidence could affect the conclusion. The
Reliability of expert opinion is based on the following factors when there is a difference of
opinion between the two experts i.e. Medical expert and legal expert, Expert opinion is
not binding on the courts, Experts engages by a party is a basis witness.
Importance of Experts opinion:
Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the rule as regard exclusion of
opinion evidence. Opinions of experts are relevant on a point of Foreign Law, Science, Art,
Identify of handwriting, Finger impressions etc. The court cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of an expert.

2. LEGAL SECTIONS RELATING TO EXPERTS OPINION

2.1 Expert opinion under Indian legal system
As a general rule, court always sees towards the direct evidence and tends to accept
the evidence of witness, who saw or hear or perused the fact. The court weighs only on
direct and circumstantial evidence, but Indian evidence act 1872 provides an exception to
this rule by inserting the sec.45 with speaks with the title opinion of experts.
Art. 45: When the court has form an opinion on a point of foreign law, science or
art or as to identify of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion on that point of
persons especially skilled on such law, science or art as question to identify handwriting of
fingerprint are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Sec. 47 of the evidence Act
provides for the opinion of handwriting expert. Same power is also mentioned under sec.73
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sec. 293 of the Cr PC, 1973 also provides the reports for
certain governmental experts as under: Chemical Examiner/ Assistant chemical examiner,
The chief controller of explosives, The Director of Finger print Bureau, The Director of
Haffkeine Institute, Bombay, The Director of Central/state forensic science laboratory, The
serologist to the Government, Any other government scientific expert specified by centre
government. The experts opinion on hand writing and finger prints also admissible in the
court. The Judiciary has been assigned a place of eminence importance under constitution
of India. It is one of the three pillars upon which Indias democracys stand upon under Art
141 of the Constitution of India, the law declare by Supreme Court of India shall be
binding on all the courts of India.
The Judge has always made law in guise of interpreting it whether the law they
legitimately exercise of a judicial fiction. The brief theory that the judge only declares the
law not makes it. How we can say that the judges bench is a seat of power. But judicial
restraints and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are
to be effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraints and humility of fiction should be
constant theme of our judges. Experts opinion no doubt a very important thing while
deciding the case the value of experts opinion in the court room depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.
The experts opinions lead to the case to a concluding point where justice is
delivered to the victim party or relatives. I have to analyse some facts where the court can
convict a person on solely on the basis of the experts opinion. How much the experts
opinions are admissible and how much it is not. Hence some are legal cases, where clearly
shows that the evidentiary value of experts opinion.

2.2 Injury as an Evidentiary Value of Experts Opinion:

In Bidhi Chand V. State of H.P. 1985(1) Crime 559
 Under the above case, prosecutrix was medically examined by a doctor and all
medical evidence shows that the prosecutrix was raped on 25 mach 1981, and convicted
under sec.376 of Indian penal code, 1860.
In Munilal Gupta V. State 1987 Crime 468
In the above case, the accused committed the murder and son of the lady also
injured by the accused person, so that evidence of injury shows that the accused was
committed the crime and these evidence is admissible in the court and the accused is to be
convicted.Other relevant case is Labbu Ram V. State of Punjab 1996 SCC (Cri) 15.

2.3 Dead Body Identification and experts opinion:

In Mohamad Zahid V. State of Tamil Naidu 1994 Cri L. J 3699
Jabeenas dead body was found a bathroom, in burning conditions, upper part of
her body was burnt 63%. Consequences of the case were so created as its a natural death
of the lady. But the Forensic Science Evidence show that it is a well planned murder, and
accused was convicted under sec 302,sec 307 of the Indian penal code. Hence the
conviction of accused was to be more justified by Evidence which is to be provided by
Forensic Science Department.

2.4 Ballistic Experts Report/ Opinions:

In case of Paramjit V. State of Haryana
It is proves that, both the accused Paramjit and Mahindra was armed with double
barrel guns. The evidence of scene shows that both the persons are aggressive. Then
suddenly someone fired a gun shot,. a person died..Burden of the blame shifts on
both innocent persons. Then The Forensic Science gives Evidence that.the person is
not killed by the double barrel gun,.he was dying with a pistol.by any other person.
The Ballistic experts report shows that both persons are innocent, not to be convicted.

2.5 In case of Accident or Mistake: Experts Opinion

In Shanta Bai V. Union of India 2001 Cri L.J. 2152
In this case, a NCC cadet fired a bolt, but miss happen hit to someone person and
the person is died. After 27 year when the report is submitted by the ballistic expert it is
totally different from the report presented by the medical expert. Hence there is conflicts
between such experts.so at this stage they mislead the case. At this point court
seeks justice from circumstantial evidence of the case and study the case in that time
periods synergic.Other cases are, Arjun Naik V. State of Orissa 2002 Cri L.J. 2185 and
Dr. Mohinder Singh Dhyaiya V.State CBI 2003 Cri L.J. 1908

2.6 Hand Writing and Finger prints as an Evidentiary Value of Experts Opinion:
In the case of Omeed Chand Ramola V. State of Uttaranchal 2006 Cri. L.J. 951
The accused is peon cum chonkidaar in the bank, alleges misappropriated money
interested to deposited in the another bank. The entrustment of money to accused was
proved from creditable evidence of witness and entrustment slip merely taking slip after
few days not affect the prosecution case. The prosecution adduced the evidence of Hand
writing by Rajinder singh yadav who process his report and the accused is convicted.
Recent cases In Govind Singh V. State and Others 2010 Cri. L.J. 505 and Lal Chand V.
State of Punjab2010 Cri. L.J. 699
In the above cases statement of witness is recorded and the statement of the accused
was also recorded under Sec.313 of CrPC 1973 was also recorded. On the report of
handwriting and experts opinion accused is punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC, 1860.

3. CONCLUSIONS
It is submitted that expert as well as courts, it will safely be emphasis that there is
an absolute necessity for an experts opinions in almost, all fields be it science or art. If
such is not appraised as diligently it out to be then the inclusion of the satisfactory,
provisions especially under the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
Finally we can say that, it is the court, who judged the value of experts opinion in
the court. It is the court which is superior to the experts opinion.
1. Gather sample from the crime scene carefully
2. Test the samples within minimum interval of time
3. There should be a noxious between crime and criminal
4. Development of forensic Science laboratories in rural areas also
5. Awareness programmes inaugurated by Forensic science laboratories
6. Court must be stopped the Narco Analysis Test because it is dangerous for
human psychology
7. The court must encourage the DNA Test in grave offences.
8. New laws relating to forensic science are to be generated by Indian
government.
9. In our judicial system must be more admissibility to scientific tests and experts
opinion.

4. REFRENCES
1. Bidhi Chand V. State of H.P. 1985(1) Crime 559
2. Munilal Gupta V. State 1987 Crime 468
3. Labbu Ram V. State of Punjab 1996 SCC(Cri)15
4. Mohamad Zahid V. State of Tamil Naidu 1994 Cri L. J 3699
5. Shanta Bai V. Union of India 2001 Cri L.J. 2152
6. Arjun Naik V. State of Orissa 2002 Cri L.J. 2185
7. Dr. Mohinder Singh Dhyaiya V.State CBI 2003 Cri L.J. 1908
8. Omeed Chand Ramola V. State of Uttaranchal 2006 Cri. L.J. 951
9. Govind Singh V. State and Others 2010 Cri. L.J. 505