Expert Opinion in Evidence Act With Duty And Value
Understanding Expert Opinion Under Indian Evidence Act
As a general rule, the law requires that the persons who depose as witnesses must state the facts seen, heard or perceived by them and not the opinions and inferences drawn by them from those facts. As the Supreme Court of India pointed out in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay (1957), "the function of drawing inference is a judicial function and must be performed by the Court.”Though forming of opinions on the basis of evidence and drawing inference is a judicial function, often the Court find that the matter under consideration relate to fields of knowledge in which the judge may not have the requisite competence to form an opinion by himself and he needs the assistance of a person who is specially skilled or acquainted in that matter.
Opinion of Experts
Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 45, IEA) states that “when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, 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 any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts”.Learn More About - Presumption in Evidence act
Who is an Expert?
Expert means a person who has specialized knowledge or skill based training, study, or experience. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 does not prescribe any qualifications for recognition as experts.
In State of HP v Jai Lal (1999), the Supreme Court said: "An expert witness is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice, or observation; and he must have a special knowledge of the subject.”
In Balkrishna Das Agarwal v Radha Devi and Ors. (1989) SC held that if a person has acquired any special experience or special training in a particular subject to which enquiry relates, such person can be considered as an expert.
In Abdul Rahman v State of Mysore (1972), SC observed that a person's eligibility as an expert may have to be assessed not just from the academic qualification but also from his practical experience. Whether or not formal education and training are necessary for the claim of expertise depends on the particular field of knowledge.
Duty of an Expert
In Murari Lal v State of MP (1980) SC held that an expert does not decide the matter. The duty of an expert is to assist the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of those criteria to the facts.
Reliability/Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion Evidence
In Murari Lal v. State of MP (1980), SC observed that expert opinion is generally considered to be unreliable not necessarily because the experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses but because all human judgment is fallible and the expert could go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of a premise or an honest mistake of Conclusion.
In S. Gopal Reddy v State of AP. (1996), SC held that expert evidence is a weak type of evidence. Courts do not consider it conclusive and therefore it is not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent corroboration.
In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital Ltd, (2010), it was observed that the Courts have to form opinions on the basis of the opinions of experts and this situation of "opinions on opinions" exposes the inherent weakness of the expert opinion evidence. An expert is not a witness of fact and his opinion evidence is really of an advisory character.
Facts that support or are inconsistent with expert evidence (Section 40, BSA/Section 46, IEA)
Sec.40 provides that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant
- if they support the expert opinion, or
- if they are inconsistent with the expert opinion.
Illustration - The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
Grounds of opinion of experts is also relevant (Section 45, BSA/Section 51, IEA)
Section 45 states that whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant.
Illustration - An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion.
Find More On - Search Warrant Under BNSS
Distinction between Expert witness and Ocular witness
| Expert Witness | Ocular Witness |
|---|---|
| Expert witness gives evidence of his opinion. | Ocular witness, is witness of fact and gives evidence of those facts which are under enquiry. |
| The expert supports his evidence by the experiments which have been performed by him in absence of the opposite party. | Ocular witness is witness of fact and is available to the opposite party for testing veracity. |
| The expert gives the rules and reasons which supports his opinion. He may cite textbooks of accredited authority in support of his opinion and may refresh his memory by reference to them. | Ocular witness gives evidence of what he has perceived by his senses. |
| Expert opinion is to assist the Court and is merely of advisory character. | In Vishnu State of Maharashtra (2006), it was held that ocular evidence is a witness of fact and prevails upon expert opinion. |
