TABLE OF CASES

1. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709.

2. Punjab Singh v. State, (1974) J & K LR 607.
3. Aziz Bano v. Mohamad Ibrahim Hussain, I.L.R. (1975) 47 All. 823.
4. Bristow v. Sequeville, (1850) 19 L.J. Ex. 289.
5.

ABBREVIATIONS
1) A.I.R. - All India Reporter.
2) All- Allahabad.
3) Bom- Bombay.
4) Cal- Calcutta.
5) Cr.LJ- Criminal Law Journal
6) J & K- Jammu & Kashmir.
7) K.B.- Kings Bench
8) Lah- Lahore.
9) LR- Law Review.
10)
Mad. - Madras.
11)
Pat- Patna.
12)
Raj. - Rajasthan.
13)
S.C. - Supreme Court.
14)
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases.

1 | Page

ABSTRACT
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 main paper consists of the following aspects:

Who may be an expert?

Subjects on which experts can give their opinion.

Some case laws from 1950 to 1980.

Value of expert opinion.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method of research which is followed for the project is a non-empirical study. The
research includes gathering the data from the existing information like referring the books
related to evidence, articles, journals and the documents relating to the topic available online.

INTRODUCTION
2 | Page

The courts have been accustomed to act on the opinion of experts from early time. The reason
is obvious. There are many matters which require professional or specialized knowledge
which the court may not possess and may therefore, rely on those who possess it. If the court
has to determine the cause of a ship-wreck or an air-crash, there may be many technical
causes behind it and, therefore, the court will need the assistance of technicians, they being
better acquainted with such causes.
Matters commonly made the subject of such evidence includes causes of death, insanity,
effects of poison, navigation of vessels, meaning of trade terms, foreign law etc. A witness
who is qualified to speak on these matters is called an Expert. Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes the relevancy and utility of expert evidence. The illustrations
deal with the opinion of an expert upon the effects of poison where death is caused by
poisoning, unsoundness of mind of any accused person and the identity of a persons
handwriting. After all the courts are manned by human beings and naturally the knowledge of
the Judges is a limited one. One may expect the Judges to possess the knowledge of law of
land, which they are under an obligation to administer, but not every detail of several other
subjects concerning the human life, particularly where special skill, special training or special
study of such subject is called for. Possessing the knowledge of every subject is only a sign of
divinity. Therefore, when the subject matter of courts enquiry involves or is of scientific
nature, it is necessary for the court to rely on the opinion of expert witnesses. However an
expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is usually of an advisory character. The duty
of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with necessary scientific criteria for testing the
accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by
the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case.1

WHO MAY BE AN EXPERT

1 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709.

3 | Page

Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits only the opinion of an expert to be cited in
evidence. This requires determination of the question as to who is an expert. The only
guidance in the section is that he should be a person Specially Skilled on the matter. Thus
the only definition of an expert available in the Act is that he is a person specially skilled in
the subject on which he testifies. But the section does not refer to any particular attainment,
standard of study or experience, which would qualify a person to give evidence as an expert.
Generally, a witness is considered as an expert if he is skilled in any particular art, trade or
profession, and possessed of peculiar knowledge concerning the same. 2 He must have made a
special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein. In such case the
question is: Is he peritus? Is he skilled? Has he adequate knowledge? The question of
competency or fitness of a witness as an expert is to be decided by the judge. Thus no formal
qualifications are necessary to qualify a witness as an expert.
An expert operates in a field, which is beyond the range of common knowledge. An expert
however not required to be a professional expert who makes a living by giving such evidence
but he must have devoted sufficient time and study of the subject to make his evidence
trustworthy.

SUBJECTS ON WHICH EXPERTS CAN TESTIFY

2Punjab Singh v. State, (1974) J & K LR 607.
4 | Page

The subjects on which an expert can testify are mentioned in Section 45 of I.E.A., 1872. It
reads as follows- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of
science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that
point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to
identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called
experts.
Foreign Law. Foreign Law means any law which is not in force in India. The courts may not
be in position to appreciate the principles of a foreign law and, therefore, whenever a court
has to decide a question of foreign law, the court can seek the help of those who are experts
on the particular foreign origin. A law which is in force in India is not foreign law even if it is
of foreign origin. In Aziz Bano v. Mohamad Ibrahim Hussain,3 the Allahabad High Court
observed that The Shia Law in marriage is the law of the land and in force in India. It can by
no means be called foreign law, nor is such law a science or art within the meaning of Sec.
45. It is the duty of the courts themselves to interpret the law of the land and apply it and not
to depend on the witness howsoever learned they may be. It would be dangerous to delegate
their duty to witness produced by either party. Foreign law, on the other hand, is a question of
fact with which the courts in India are not supposed to be conversant. Opinion of experts on
foreign law are therefore, allowed to be admitted.
In an early English case of Bristow v. Sequeville, 4 it was suggested that that an expert of a
foreign law should be a practitioner of law of that foreign law country. In foreign law, the
expert may be either a professional lawyer or a holder of an official situation which requires
and therefore implies knowledge or perhaps some other person who from his profession or
business has had peculiar means of becoming acquainted with the law in question.
No foreign law becomes the part of the law of this country (India) merely by the
circumstances that it is to be applied by the courts in India. Such foreign law remains a
foreign law and consequently under Sec. 45 of I.E.A., 1872, expert evidence is admissible in
respect of such foreign law. What the law in a foreign country is a question of fact, to be
proved by evidence.5
Matters of Science or Art. Expert opinion is relevant on all questions on points of science or
art. The terms Science or Art have not to be taken in any technical sense, but as including
3 I.L.R. (1975) 47 All. 823.
4 (1850) 19 L.J. Ex. 289.
5 Sugan Chand Bhikam Chand v. Mangibai Gulabchand, A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 185.
5 | Page

anything that requires specialized knowledge, skill, study or experience or otherwise beyond
the comprehension of a layman. The word Science which has been defined in the Universal
Dictionary of English language, as a great proficiency, dexterity and skill based on long
experience and practice is sufficiently wide to include the evidence of an expert.6
Here the terms Science and Art have to be understood in a broader sense, and not in a
narrower sense. The word Science is not just confined only to physical sciences or
biological sciences. Similarly the word Art is not just confined to fine arts having its
original sense of handicraft, trade, profession and skill works. Any matter for the purpose of
forming an opinion, which requires some special skill, special training or special study is
regarded as a science.
The opinion of an expert on facts proved or admitted is only relevant when the Court has to
perform an opinion on a point of science or art. Expert opinion will differ even on admitted or
proved facts. But when the facts are not admitted the Court will have first to come to a
conclusion on the evidence as to facts have been proved and then apply to such facts the
various expert opinions which have been offered. The line where there no longer remains a
point of science or art is not always very clearly defined. 7 Telephony is a science or art and
the witnesses knowledge of the telephone and of engineering generally places them in a
special position and makes them competent to express an opinion upon articles and matters
which are largely in use in the department of the telephone and of engineering generally. The
expert evidence of these witnesses is entitled to very considerable weight.8
Handwriting or Finger Impressions. When the court has to decide upon the identity of the
handwriting of a certain person or the identity of a certain persons finger impression, the
court may receive the evidence of a person who has acquired an expertise on the matter.
Apart from persons possessing professional qualification on the subject, the court may
receive the evidence of a person who is otherwise acquainted with the subject.
In a proceeding against an Advocate by the Bar Council Disciplinary Committee relating to
the misconduct in the drafting of a notice, comparison of the handwriting on the draft with
specimen handwriting was involved. The Supreme Court cautioned the committee that it
should not base its conclusion solely on its own comparison. 9 The Supreme Court has laid
6 Basudeo Gir v. State, A.I.R. 1959 Pat. 534.
7 Monosseh Jacob v. Shapurji Horusji, 10 Bom. L.R. 1004.
8Bachraj Factories Ltd. v. Bombay Telephone Co., Ltd., A.I.R. 1939 Sind 245.
9 Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India, (1997) 3 S.C.C. 585.
6 | Page

down in quite a few cases that the evidence of an expert as to handwriting is only in the
nature of an opinion and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. It should
be corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Such evidence
cannot be conclusive by itself. The evidence of writing expert unlike that of a fingerprint
expert is generally of a frail character and that should be wary to give too much weight to it. 10
Identification of handwriting is an imperfect science. An expert can certify only probability
and not 100% certainty.11
The Allahabad High Court rejected the opinion of an expert that a marriage was not forged as
against the opinion of the experts of Government Forensic Laboratory. 12 Contradicting
opinion was given by two experts, the Supreme Court preferred the opinion of the expert
who, on cogent reasons, had certified that the document was forged. That expert was also
well qualified and had vast experience n the field. The reasoning of the other expert was
found to be not cogent.13 Where a woman met her death in a guest house room and the police
found two slips of paper and the evidence of the handwriting expert was that the writing on
the papers was that of her husband (the accused). The Supreme Court said that the opinion
could be relied upon when supported by the evidence which corroborated the circumstantial
evidence.14 Where the allegation in the plaint was that the gift deed in question was false and
fabricated document and the court agrees with it going only on the report of the fingerprint
expert, formulating this opinion without even considering direct or oral evidence which was
available throwing considerable light on the circumstances of the execution of the document,
it was held that the evidence of an expert should not be used to outweigh direct oral
evidence.15 Where the first photographs of the finger prints did not enable the expert to come
to any conclusion and he attempted again, it was held that the results of the second attempt
should not have been rejected without cross-examination of the photographer.16 The evidence
10 Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 529; Ishwari Pd. Mishra v. Md. Isa, A.I.R. 1963
S.C. 1728.
11 M.K. Usman Koya v. C.S. Santha, A.I.R. 2003 Ker. 191.
12 Altaf Hussain v. Nasreen Zahra, A.I.R. 1978 All. 515.
13 Balwinder Kaur v. Bawa Singh, A.I.R. 2002 P. & H. 378.
14 Alamgir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 282.
15 Dulal Chandra Adak v. Gunadhar Patra, A.I.R. 1999 Cal. 150.
16 Ammini v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 260.
7 | Page

of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence. It can be used only to corroborate some
other evidence of substantive nature which is already there on record.
When the court has to determine the question whether a particular document was signed or
written by a certain person, the court can, of course, admit the opinion of an expert. But in
addition to that, Section 47 of I.E.A., 1872 permits the court to admit the opinion of a person
who is acquainted with that persons handwriting. The section also explains as to who is
considered to be acquainted with another persons handwriting.
In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh,17 Supreme Court held that the handwriting may be
proved by the evidence of a witness in whose presence the writing was done and this would
be direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered
unnecessary. Following this the Calcutta High Court held, 18 that where a witness deposed that
the plaintiff had signed the requisition slip for a second cheque book in his presence, that was
sufficient proof of the plaintiffs signature.
Sections 45 and 47 put together recognize the following mode of proving handwriting by the
opinion of an expert. Handwriting can be proved every day by opinion, and for false evidence
on such question a man may be indicted for perjury.19 The Supreme Court said that under
Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific
comparison and in latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observation.20
Under Section 73 of I.E.A., 1872, when the court has to form an opinion as to handwriting or
signature of a person the court may compare the handwriting or signature in question with the
hand writing or signature, which has been proved or admitted to the satisfaction of the court.
Section 73 also empowers court to direct any person, present to furnish a specimen of his
handwriting or signature so as to enable the court to compare the same with the one, alleged
to be written by that person.
The Science of Fire-Arms. In criminal cases where the fire arms are alleged to have been
used the opinion of ballistic experts is made admissible. A fire-arm expert is able to say from
the nature of gunshot injury the king of fire-arm that was used and the distance from which it
was fired at and whether it was recently used or not.

17 A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1326.

18 P.M. Das v. Central Bank, A.I.R. 1978 Cal. 64.
19 Folkes v. Chadd. (1782) 3 K.B. 157.
20 Ram Narain v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2200.
8 | Page

Report of the ballistic expert under the signature of a Junior Ballistic Officer of the Central
Forensic Laboratory can be read as evidence without examining the said officer. 21 Where the
Ballistic expert gave his report expressing his opinion that the pellets which were recovered
from the body of the deceased were fired from the exhibited 12 bore country made pistol and
deposed that he had prepared his report based on microscopic examination, the expert report
is admissible and the details of microscopic examination need not be offered in evidence
when the expert witness had given convincing reasons in support of his opinion. 22 Where the
opinion is given by the expert of Ballistics who after conducting all the tests deposes in the
Court of law, there is no reason to distrust his opinion. It can be accepted.23
In every case where a firearm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition
to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however good
the direct evidence may and though, on the record, there may no reason to doubt the said
direct evidence.24
Medical Expert. As far as medical experts are concerned the Courts in India have different
opinions. In certain cases they have accepted the evidence. The husband alleged his wife was
pregnant at the time of marriage. The doctor who was an expert in mid-wifery had deposed
the contention to be true. Though he was not gynecologist, the Court accepted his evidence. 25
But, again the Court held in other cases medical evidence is hardly conclusive and decisive,
because it is primarily an evidence of opinion. The Court has to consider not merely medical
evidence but also the other evidence and circumstances appearing on the point. 26 But as far as
post mortem reports are concerned sufficient weightage is given to the doctors deposition
who had conducted the postmortem. When the post mortem report is more favourable to the
accused and there are discrepancies between the medical evidence and the inquest report, the
benefit of discrepancies should be given to the accused by accepting the post-mortem report
instead of inquest report.27 Where the report of the serologist stated that the blood on the two
21 State of H.P. v. Mast Ram, 2004 Cr.LJ 4973 (SC).
22 State of M.P. through C.B.I. v. Paltan Mallah, A.I.R. 2005 SC 733.
23 Surat Sing v. State, 1995 Cr.L.J. 3189.
24 Kartik Harijan v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrL.J. 2019.
25 Baldev Raj Miglani vs. Urmila, AIR 1979 SC 879.
26 Mani Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1993 SC 2453.
27 Maula Bux vs. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 379.
9 | Page

items of clothes was human blood and the items belonged to the accused, they connect him
with crime.28 Regarding injuries and time of death the evidence of the experts is accepted
depending on the other circumstances. Regarding age positive evidence furnished by birth
register, by members of the family, with regard to the age, will have preference over the
opinion of the doctors. But, if the evidence is wholly unsatisfactory, and if the ossification
test in the case is complete, such test can be accepted as a surer ground for determination of
age.29 As far as paternity is concerned now it has become very usual to direct the use of blood
tests. Blood groups according to the scientists have a causative relation between the trait of
the progenitor and that of the progeny. In other words the blood compositor of child may be
of some evidence as to the childs paternity. The blood group tests are useful only to exclude
the possibility that a man is the father. Sophisticated blood tests are now being adopted which
are so advanced as capable of providing a very high or low probability of paternity. Tests
made of the DNA can provide what can practically be regarded as certainty in paternity cases.

CASE LAWS FROM 1950-1980

In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 30 in a prosecution for possession for purpose of
sale of an obscene matter, the prosecution had examined two witnesses. One was the text
purchaser named in the charge and the other an Inspector of the Vigilance Department. These
witnesses proved possession and sale of the book. The Inspector in his testimony also offered
his reasons for considering the book to be obscene. On behalf of the accused Mr. Mulkraj
Anand, a writer and art critic gave evidence and in detailed the analysis of the novel, he
sought to establish that in spite of its apparent indelicate theme and the candidness of its
delineation and diction, the novel was a work of considerable literary merit and a classic and
not obscene. In this connection their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above case
pointed out that the question does not altogether depend on oral evidence because the
offending novel and the portions which were the subject of charge must be judged by the
Court in the light of Sec. 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the provisions of Constitution
of India.

28 Boddu Murali vs. State, 1993 Cr.L.J. 2077.

29 SK Belal vs. State of Orissa, 1994 Cr.L.J. 467 (Ori).
30 A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 881.
10 | P a g e

In Sri Chandra Batra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 31 the Excise Inspector whose evidence was
under consideration had sufficient knowledge to be deemed to be an expert within the
meaning of Sec. 45 so that the tests adopted by him, together with all the attendant
circumstances, could establish beyond doubt that the accused was in possession of illicit
liquor, are essentially questions of fact. If there is sufficient evidence led by the prosecution
to establish its case it became the duty of the evidence led by the prosecution to establish its
case it became the duty of the defence to rebut that evidence.
In Kalua v. State of Uttar Pradesh,32 the experts evidence showed that he had fired four test
cartridges from the pistol in question. He found the individual characteristics of the chamber
to have been impressed upon the test cartridge and that exactly identical markings were
present on the paper tube of the cartridge found near the cot on which the deceased slept. He
made microphotographs of some of these individual marks with test cartridge and the
cartridge found near the cots on which the deceased slept. In giving his reasons for his
opinion, the firearms expert stated that every firearm has individual characteristics on its
breech face striking pin and chamber. By firing a number of test cartridges from a given
firearm and comparing them under a microscopic with the evidence cartridge, it can
definitely be stated, that if the marks are clear, whether the evidence cartridges had been fired
or not from that firearm. The Supreme Court after examining the evidence of the firearms
expert carefully opined that the firearm expert had made the necessary tests and had been
careful in what he did and thus there was no good reason for distrusting his opinion.
In Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab,33 the expert stated that he came to the conclusion that the
injuries on Dial Singh and Swaran Kaur were probably caused by one gun-fire only. He was
not categorical about it. The reason for his conclusion was the dimensions of the injuries. The
Court held that he had not seen the injuries and it would need duper-human ability to come to
a conclusion on this subject by merely looking at the description of the injuries or even the
photographs given by the doctors. The dimensions of the injuries noted by the doctors cannot
be correct to the extent of 1/100th of an inch. Most experts answers were not categorical. He
did not have an opportunity of seeing the injuries and exit wounds of the shots himself. He
was mostly giving answers on the basis of observations made by others and measurements
noted by them. A small difference in the measurements one way or the other might make all
31 A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 639.
32 A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 1204.
33 A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2161.
11 | P a g e

the difference to the final result. It would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on the evidence
of expert.
In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab,34 no useful purpose could have been served by
examination an expert of the purpose for showing that the gun had been used by S because, as
D took care to keep the gun with himself for over a week and then surrendered it. It would be
idle in such a case to suggest that it was necessary for the prosecution to examine an expert
even though it is extremely unlikely that traces of its use had not been removed by D before
he surrendered it. Then as to G it is admitted that he fired twice and there was nothing on
record to show that the injuries disclosed by the post-mortem notes and deposed to by the
doctor could not have been caused by a gun which it is alleged, belonged to A and which was
picked up by G after it fell down from his hands. Therefore, in the circumstances of the
instant case, it would not be possible to accept the plea that the failure of the prosecution to
accept the plea that the failure of the prosecution to examine a ballistic expert has introduced
a serious infirmity in the prosecution case.
In State v. Ramachandra Bhoi,35 a doctor held the post-mortem examination on the dead body
of P. According to the post-mortem report, there were gunshot wounds. The entrance wound
was noticeable but not the exit wound. It was held that it was the duty of the medical officer
to have directed X-ray examination of the dead body to determine if bullets were located in
the body. It was the duty of the investigation officer to see if bullets were inside the dead
body and if those bullets, if recovered, to be proved by ballistic examination to have been
shot from the revolver in question.
In Dhuri Shah v. Kishun Prasad Sah, 36 a private expert was examined on behalf of the
defendants but he had not been appointed as such by the Court. It was held that this fact by
itself cannot be a ground for holding that in the absence of any order in regard to his
appointment as an expert, it was not open to the defendants to examine him on their own
behalf. It is a different matter that the evidence of such an expert has to be appreciated in the
light of the circumstances surrounding it.
In Syed Ali Nawaz Gardezi v. Lt. Col. Muhammad Yusuf, 37 the statements of the two
handwriting experts were not cogent or convincing enough to lead to a definite conclusions.
34 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 340.
35 A.I.R. 1965 Orissa 175.
36 A.I.R. 1965 Pat. 29.
37 P.L.D. 1963 S.C. 51.
12 | P a g e

They admitted that here were differences between the document D and the other
acknowledged writings of the complainant, but they described them as natural variations. In
the circumstances Court said that It appears to be a risky process to base the finding of
genuineness only on the discovery by an astute investigation, of certain similarities which are
not of a striking character as to fix the authorship of the questioned writing beyond the
dispute, there is of course the consideration that a forger would not take the risk of fabricating
the signatures alone. But at the same time the absence of any witnesses to the execution of the
document is a circumstance that calls for adverse comment.
In Jadeja Natwarsinghji v. Thacker Arjan Sunderji,38 the defendant denied the execution of a
bond by him. The Court, by comparing defendants signatures on the record with those on the
bond and the account produced by the plaintiff, held that the latter were defendants
signatures. No expert evidence was given. Held that even an experts evidence could not be
conclusive still less the comparison of the two sets of handwritings by the Judge.
In State v. Karu Gope,39 one item of evidence against B was a blood-stained foot print on a
piece of paper. The prosecution had tire to prove that an impression of his right foot taken by
the prosecution, tallied with blood-stained foot-impression. The question was considered by
Patna High Court on merit without any reference to Sec. 45 I.E.A., 1872. An expert had been
examined in Court who had given reason for identifying the enlarged photograph of the
blood-stained foot-print with the impression of right foot of the accused B. As against K, it
was alleged that he had left an impression of the left palm on a wall. The same expert had
given reasons for comparison of Ks palm impression on the wall with his specimen
impression. Patna High Court accepted the opinion of the expert as against K, again without
any discussion of Sec. 45 of I.E.A., 1872.
In Ram Karan Mistri v. State of Bihar,40 The facts of this case indicate that Mahesh, one of
the accused persons, was said to have left a foot-print on the chadar of a gaddi. The foot-print
was compared with the specimen foot-print and an expert was examined in that connection.
The opinion of the expert was considered by the Patna High Court and was accepted for
reasons given by their Lordships.

38 A.I.R. 1950 Kutch 17.

39 A.I.R. 1954 Pat. 131.
40 1958 Pat. L.R. 246.
13 | P a g e

In Lydia Belinda Simoes v. Associated Metals and Mineral Corp., New York, 41 the Medical
Officer heard the facts of the case in Trial Court and said that in view of these facts he felt
that the respondent might have not been of sound mind at about 6:30 or 7:00 P.M. on 30 th
August, 1966. It was held that the opinion of the Medical Officer was not in his capacity as
an expert and no importance could be given to it. It was only his presumption.
In Golappa Avana Naik v. State,42 all the eye-witnesses deposed unanimously that the accused
Golappa had given blow with batten on the head of the deceased Ramachandra. This evidence
was in conflict with the medical evidence on record. Four external injuries were found by the
doctor on the person of the deceased. It was held that the conclusion that sprang from that
discordance was that the alleged eye-witness had not seen the occurrence.
In Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 43 a parent whose child was kidnapped received a
written postcard and an inland letter from the accused demanding ransom. The Supreme
Court upheld the conviction of the accused on a charge of kidnapping on the basis of the
evidence of an expert that the letter by which a ransom for the child was demanded was in the
handwriting of the accused. DUA, J., himself compared the handwriting in question with a
proven handwriting in question with a proven handwriting of the accused and satisfied
himself and held that no further corroboration is necessary.

VALUE OF EXPERT OPINION

The weight that ought to be attached to the opinion of an expert is a different matter from its
relevancy. The I.E.A., 1872 only provides about the relevancy of expert opinion but gives no
guidance as no its value. The value of expert opinion has to be viewed in the light of many
adverse factors. Firstly, there is the danger of error or deliberate falsehood. In the case of
Happu v. Emperor,44 the court said that these privileged persons might be half blind,
incompetent or even corrupt.45 Secondly, his evidence is after all opinion and human
judgment is fallible. Human knowledge is limited and imperfect. 46 No man ever mastered
41 A.I.R. 1971 Goa 1.
42 A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2423.
43 A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2000.
44 A.I.R. 1933 All. 837
45 Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v. Sadhni, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2023.
46 Queen-Empress v. Ahmad Alley, 11 W.R. Cr. 25
14 | P a g e

all the knowledge on any of the sciences.47 Thirdly, it must be borne in mind that an expert
witness, however impartial he may wish to be, likely to be unconsciously prejudiced in
favour of the side which calls him. 48 It is on the basis of these factors that it has been
remarked of an expert that the witnesses now in worst repute are called expert witnesses that
is, witnesses retained and paid to support by their evidence a certain view on a scientific or
technical question. These factors seriously reduce the probative value of expert evidence.49
The Rajasthan High Court observed on the facts of a case involving the opinion of a
handwriting expert that such opinion could not be rejected only on the ground that he is a
remunerated witness or that it is based on an imperfect science. 50 The reliability of such
evidence has, therefore, to be tested in the same way in which any other piece of evidence is
tested. The court should, therefore, call upon an expert to explain the reasons for his opinion
and then form its own opinion as to whether or not the expert opinion is satisfactory. 51 It has
to be borne in the mind when assessing the opinion of experts that clearly it is not the
province of the expert to act as a judge or jury.52 The opinion of the expert is not decisive
matter.53 The story alleged by eye-witnesses can be verified by medical evidence. 54 The value
of technical evidence, like that of medical evidence, also depends upon the circumstances of
the case. There is no rule of law that it is unsafe to base a conviction on the uncorroborated
testimony of a finger print expert, but even so the court should not take his opinion for
granted.55
Where expert opinion is relevant, the expert has to be heard as a first and foremost
requirement. The expert should be competent in his field. He is not to act as a judge or jury.
He is not witness of fact. His evidence is not of advisory character. His credibility depends on

47 State v. Walker, 65 M.C. 74.

48 Hari Singh v. Sardarni Lachmi Devi, A.I.R. 1921 Lah. 126.
49 Amalesh Chandra v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 481.
50 Ameer Md. v. Barkat Ali, A.I.R. 2002 Raj. 406.
51 Crown Prosecutor v. Gopal, A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 551.
52 Law of Society of India v. Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., A.I.R. 1994 Ker 308.
53 Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2453.
54 Sunil Chandra v. State, A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 315.
55 Harendra Nath Sen v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 441.
15 | P a g e

reasons stated in support of his conclusions and data and material furnished which formed the
basis for the same.

CONCLUSION
After all the courts are manned by human beings and naturally the knowledge of the Judges is
a limited one. One may expect the Judges to possess the knowledge of law of land, which
they are under an obligation to administer, but not every detail of several other subjects
concerning the human life, particularly where special skill, special training or special study of
such subject is called for. Possessing the knowledge of every subject is only a sign of divinity.
Therefore, when the subject matter of courts enquiry involves or is of scientific nature, it is
necessary for the court to rely on the opinion of expert witnesses. However an expert is not a
witness of fact and his evidence is usually of an advisory character. The duty of an expert
witness is to furnish the Judge with necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the

16 | P a g e

conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of
these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF STATUTES:

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (I.E.A).

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

BOOKS:

Dr. V. Krishnamachari: Law of Evidence, 6 th Edition, 2007, S. Gogia & Company,

Hyderabad.

Dr. Avtar Singh: Principles of The Law of Evidence, 19 th Edition, 2011, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad.

17 | P a g e

C.D. Field: Law of Evidence, Vol. III, 4th Edition with Supp., 1987, Law Publishers,
Allahabad.

WEBSITES:

http://www.indiankanoon.org

http://www.legalserviceindia.com

http://www.indianlawcases.com

18 | P a g e