1

A Project Work In LAW OF EVIDENCE

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. NEHA SINHA

FACULTY: - LAW OF EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED BY: PRANAV KHANDELWAL

SEMESTER 7
SECTION A
ROLL NO. 94

SUBMITTED ON:
24th AUGUST, 2015

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty.
I would like to sincerely thank my faculty for Law of Evidence Ms. Neha Sinha Mam for
giving me this topic and guiding me throughout the project. Through this project I have
learned a lot about the aforesaid topic and this in turn has helped me grow as a student.

My heartfelt gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the
infrastructure in the form of our library and IT lab that was a source of great help in the
completion of this project.

PRANAV KHANDELWAL

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 5
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5
Chapterisation ............................................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 1: DEFINITION OF AN EXPERT ..................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: EXPERT EVIDENCE: ADMISSIBILITY AND APPRECIATION ............. 6
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF SECTION 45 ....................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 4: VARIOUS RULES FOR EXPERT OPINION ............................................ 10
CHAPTER 5: VALUE OF EXPERT OPINION ................................................................. 11
Competency of Expert Witnesses .................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 6: MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OCULAR EVIDENCE ............................... 12
CHAPTER 7: EVIDENCE OF TRACKING DOGS........................................................... 14
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 17
References ................................................................................................................................ 18
Acts/Statutes ........................................................................................................................ 18
Books ................................................................................................................................... 18
Websites ............................................................................................................................... 18

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 4

INTRODUCTION
In simple language if we look at the phrase Expert Opinion and try to analyze it then it means
that an opinion which is given by a person, who is expert in a particular field, may it be
science, art, law or any other technical field. And, this concept is envisaged by Section 45 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

On a bare reading of section, we find that scheme of section has stressed on different types of
experts like foreign law, science, art, fingerprints, handwriting etc. But, section does not have
comprehensive approach because at the time of framing of Act these other branches of
Science were not known also. So, the important point is the very meaning of the words
Expert and Opinion.

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.1

Expert means one who is skilled in any particular art or trade, profession being professed of
particular knowledge, concerning the same. And if a person has acquired any special
experience or special training in a particular subject to which Court enquiry relates, such a
person can be considered as an expert, An expert 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 subject. Any person who has the experience to give an informed
opinion on a matter outside the experience of Court is an Expert.

An Opinion is estimation, a belief or assessment, a view held as probable, what one thinks
about a particular question or topic, an assessment short of grounds of proofs, a formal
statement of reasons for the judgment, a formal statement of professional advice.

1
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 5

OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project is mainly to throw some light on Expert Opinions in
reference to Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker. In addition to the main objective it
aims to analyze various judgments and to trace out the applicability of this law in our
country so far by the legislature and the Apex Court rulings.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources
have been largely used to gather information about the topic.
Websites, books, journals and articles have been primarily helpful in giving this project a
firm structure.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the source.

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 6

CHAPTERISATION

CHAPTER 1: DEFINITION OF AN EXPERT

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with expert evidence and allows the
production of an expert to aid the judge to form an opinion on points of foreign law or
science or art or as to identity of handwriting.
An expert is a person 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. Under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expert means one who is a specially skilled
person. Such persons may also be considered as experts who practice a business/profession,
which requires them to possess certain knowledge of the matter in hand.
There are no tests as such laid down by law to determine how much experience or
qualification a person must possess to be taken as an expert. A combination of elements may
be considered for accepting a witness as an expert, like:
1. Expertise, including academic achievements, professional training, experience in the
trade, means at the command and the application of those means for coming to a
conclusion.
2. Clarity, include avoidance of jargons, use of simple language, evidence supported by
photographs, charts, sketches etc. so as to make his opinion appreciated by layman.
Relevancy does not include mere presumption of facts, but drawing of conclusions either
from his own experience or from published works of accredited authors.

CHAPTER 2: EXPERT EVIDENCE: ADMISSIBILITY AND APPRECIATION

Expert evidence is an opinion' evidence and as a general rule, the opinion of a witness on a
question of fact or of law is irrelevant.2 A witness may testify only to facts, not to their effect
or result, or to his conclusions based on those facts and he can give as evidence only of facts,
which he has directly perceived through his senses.3 It is the function of the judge to form his
own opinion on the facts stated. The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skills (as of
experts) is an exception to this rule.4 It is important to note here that the opinion of an expert
is not accepted just because he says so. He has to satisfy the court about his expertise on the

2
Khushboo Enterprises v. Forest Range Officer, AIR 1994 SC 120.
3
Babuli v. State, 1974 Cri LJ 510.
4
Field, Commentary on Law of Evidence (Revised by Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Delhi Law House, 2001) p.2428.

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 7

particular fact in question5 and further, has to show to the court that his findings are unbiased
and scientific. The duty of the 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 application of these criteria.6
The report of an expert is not admissible unless he has been examined as a witness and the
party affected by it has had the opportunity of cross-examining him. Further, a finding by an
expert, not supported by reasons, has to be rejected.7 Thus, the admissibility of an expert's
evidence is subject to certain checks, which are in furtherance of the basic ideas of justice. It
is argued that after all an expert is a human being and it must be borne in mind that an expert
witness, however impartial he may wish to be, is likely to be unconsciously prejudiced in
favour of the side which calls him. The mere fact of opposition on the part of the other side is
apt to create a spirit of partisanship and rivalry, so that an expert witness is unconsciously
impelled to support the view taken by his own side. Besides, it must be remembered that an
expert is often called by one side simply because it has been ascertained that he holds the
views favourable to its interest.8 This is one reason why at times in certain cases two experts
reach a different conclusion on the basis of the same material.9
Some scholars are antagonistic to the very concept of expert evidence and opine that perhaps
the testimony which least deserves the credit is that of skilled witness. These witnesses are
usually required to speak, not to facts but to opinions: and when this is the case, it is often
quite surprising to see with that facility, and to what an extent, their views can be made to
correspond with the wishes of the interests of the parties who call them.
The response to this view can be that the general motto for expert witnesses, viz. An expert
witness is there neither for the prosecution nor for the defence, but is there to assist the
Court should be sacredly espoused by the experts and an approach of caution should be
taken up by the Court. This basically means that the rule that it is unsafe to base a conviction
solely on the expert opinion without substantial corroboration should be applied in all
cases10 where an expert witness is giving evidence. Further, the testimony of an expert is to

5
State v. Madhukar, 1967 Cri LJ 167.
6
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3318.
7
Haji Mohammed Ekramul Haq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488.
8
Hari Singh v. Lacchmi Devi, AIR 1921 Lah.126.
9
Suresh Kumar v. Mewaram, AIR 1991 P&H 254.
10
This basically means that the credit of an expert can be impeached like that of any other witness under
Sections 146, 153 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 8

be received with great care and caution.11 It has also been held by the Courts that the expert
evidence is a weak type of evidence that needs independent and reliable corroboration.12
Although there is no clear bar to base a conviction solely on expert evidence,13 it is advisable,
in the opinion of the authors, not to base conviction solely on the opinion evidence of an
expert, especially if the evidence so adduced is not supported by logical and scientific
reasons.14 One of the rules of caution that all courts follow as regards expert opinion is that
they should never surrender their free will or independence or judgment to an expert. In all
cases in which expert evidence is adduced before it, the Court must after giving it such
weight as it deserves and the court thinks fit, make up its own mind upon the issue in respect
of which the expert testimony has been given.15

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF SECTION 45

Expert Opinion assists the Court in the matter of scientific nature. Expert gives opinion for
the matter after assessing it. This opinion is not binding in nature and is merely advisory.
Only an opinion is to be given and not a conclusion of matter by an expert. It should be of
corroborative nature to facts and circumstances of the case. If opinion contradicts an
unimpeachable eye witness or documentary evidence then it will not have an upper hand over
direct evidences. Expert opinion helps a Judge to form an independent opinion in every
mater. Section of the Act does not provide for any specific attainment, study of experience
for an expert. Experts are admissible as witness but, they are not to make conclusion as it is a
judicial function. Experts have to state the facts, which he has seen, heard or perceived
through his/ her sense. They are not helpful to Court in the interpretation of law. It is weak
evidence.16
To be appointed as expert one must have attainment in professional qualification. Some
professional experience or should have made special study in subject. He must prove himself
as an expert before Court. Some training must have been practiced by expert into that

11
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, 1977 Cri LJ 711.
12
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 Cri LJ 3237.
13
Murarilal v. State of MP, AIR 1980 SC 531.
14
ibid
15
State of UP v. Krishna Gopal, 1989 Cri LJ 288.
16
Fields, Commentary on Law of Evidence, Delhi Law House, 12th Edition, Volume 3, Page 278

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 9

scientific field or has special knowledge of that field or, if he has made some observation in
that field.17
Opinion is sought so that the court is able to assess evidence with a reasonable degree by
relying on its own experience. But in some cases the Court is not able to come to a
conclusion on the basis of its experience as because Court is ill equipped. And, for that
opinion of an expert is being sought.
It is for Court to decide that if case partakes character of science or art and possessing
knowledge of that specific subject is a must for that case to be adjudged then expert opinion
is to be sought. So when subject matter of courts inquiry is of such a scientific nature then the
Court takes the Technical assistance in that field. Once the opinion is admitted by the Court
then it is no more an Experts opinion but the opinion of Court. And these opinions are not
authoritative in value but they are persuasive.18
These types of opinion involves various types of scientific areas like that of Foreign Law,
Science, Art, Handwriting, Fingerprinting, Foot printing, Medical Science, Ballistic Expert,
DNA Expert, Forensic Science, Lie Detectors and Truth Drugs etc. So in these kinds of Cases
Court by itself is inefficient to answer the Technical questions. And moreover the presiding
officer of the Court cannot be expected to keep knowledge of all the fields of science as it is
inhuman and impossible for anyone to keep knowledge with himself/ herself. In that way
resorting to opinion of Experts is correct.19
When there is a conflict between the opinion evidence and oral testimony of the evidence,
then evidence can be assessed in two ways. The first method can be applied only in those
cases where the oral evidence is above reproach and creates confidence and there is no false
no appreciable reason for the false application of any accused. Where the evidence is not of
that character and the opinion evidence is not open to any doubt or suspicion, the only safe
and judicial method of assessing method is the second method.20

17
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa & Wadhwa Company, 21st Edition, Lawyers Edition,
Page 435
18
Bachraj Factories Ltd v. Bombay Telephone Co. Ltd., AIR 1939 Sind 245.
19
Monir M., The Law of Evidence, Universal Law Publishing House, 8th Edition, Page 187
20
Thakurs and others v. State AIR 1955 all 189

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 10

CHAPTER 4: VARIOUS RULES FOR EXPERT OPINION

The first rule is of Experts educational background. That means even the doctor is examined
and is subjected to scrutiny and cross examination. And if his opinion and observations
contained in his statement are supported then the report can be looked at otherwise not. So,
even the examination of Doctor becomes essential.21
The second test is of the exhibits and the illustrations that the expert brings with him or
makes. He should not base his opinion on the basis of memory and abbreviated notes. But he
should have the opinion of such a level that even if there is an expert evidence of the opposite
party then also he is able to defend his stand.
The third test is of readiness to detail his techniques and procedures as an expert should not
be of skillful nature as to outlining his procedures that he has followed. And he should be so
confident that no qualms can say that he has skipped procedures in reaching to his
conclusions.22
And the conclusive test is that an Expert is conservative and is cautious and phrases his
conclusion that in all probabilities the offence was committed by the accused only.23
It is a well settled principle that the opinion of an Expert should be taken with a great caution
and moreover the decision should not be based simply on the basis of the opinion of an
Expert, without a substantial corroboration, as it is unsafe otherwise. Opinion of an Expert by
its very nature, weak, and infirm and in itself cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction
and should be taken with a great caution.24
It is their duty of court not to occupy the role of an expert by themselves and Supreme Court
has always deprecated the courts to take the role of an expert. But, before applying the
opinion of an expert the court has to see to apply its own admitted or proved things and
compare them with the disputed ones.25 And they have to verify the premises of the expert in
one case and value the opinion in the other case.26
When the direct evidence is well corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and conforms
to probabilities, there is no reason why it should not be accepted. The mere fact that the
expert has come to a different conclusion on a particular point would not render that part of

21
Dhobi Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1989 (2) , Cr. L.C., 629 at p 641 (Patna)
22
Supra Note 24
23
ibid
24
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091
25
Supra Note 15
26
ibid

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 11

his story open to doubt especially when the data on which the expert has come to that
conclusion is insufficient. The data on which the expert weigh must weigh with the Court and
the opinion of the expert must be judged in the light thereof.27

CHAPTER 5: VALUE OF EXPERT OPINION

The Expert evidence has two aspects ---
a) Data evidence [it cant be rejected if it is inconsistent to oral evidence]
b) Opinion evidence - It is only an inference drawn from the data and it would not get
precedence over the direct eye-witness testimony unless the inconsistency between the two is
so great as to falsify the oral evidence.28
Expert evidence is opinion evidence and it cant take the place of substantive evidence. It is a
rule of procedure that expert evidence must be corroborated either by clear direct evidence or
by circumstantial evidence.
It is not safe to rely upon this type of evidence without seeking independent and reliable
corroboration.29

Competency of Expert Witnesses

It is necessary that the competency of the expert witness whose expert testimony is to be
admitted must be satisfactorily established30. It is for the court to determine the competency
of an expert witness.31 In determining the competency of the expert, the court may have to
take the qualifications, experience, training, and study, possessed by the expert in the
particular field to which the courts enquiry pertains.32
The opinion of an expert witness can also be contradicted and rebutted by showing that he
gave a different opinion on other occasion in a similar matter or by producing a standard
treatise relevant to the subject matter of enquiry, The Opinion of an expert witness can also
be contradicted by engaging another expert witness.33

27
Brij Basi v. Moti Ram AIR 1982 All 323 at p 321
28
Arshad v. State of A.P. 1996 CrLJ 2893 (AP) at para 34
29
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC2184 (Para27)
30
Punjab Singh v State, (1974) J&K LR 607
31
ibid
32
Raj Kishore v State, AIR 1969 Cal.321
33
Supra Note 15

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 12

Where the trial court making a reference to some textbooks of medical jurisprudence arrived
at the conclusion that the case of strangulation was clearly made out, cannot be said that
opinions of these authors were given in regard to circumstances exactly similar to those
which arose in the instant case nor is this a satisfactory mode of way of dealing with or
disposing of the evidence of an expert examined in this case, unless the passages which are
sought to be relied to discredit such expert opinion are put on him.34
No doubt the opinions expressed in textbooks by specialist authors may be of considerable
assistance to the court and arriving at the truth, although such views may have persuasive
vale but cannot always reconsidered to be authoritatively binding. The court is not to a large
extent is advisory in nature and therefore the court must derive its own conclusion cautiously
upon considering the opinions of experts adduced by both the sides.35
Where a doctor of Primary health Centre gave the opinion while treating the deceased that
there was single injury on head, while the doctor who performed the post mortem gave the
opinion that there were injuries on head, on back, on left shoulder, the inconsistencies
between the two medical opinions is not material since the doctor at Primary Health Centre
giving emergency treatment might have paid entire attention only to serious head injuries.36

CHAPTER 6: MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OCULAR EVIDENCE

It is not universal principle supported by any authority that in all cases when there is variance
between the account given by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, the evidence of
eye witnesses must prevail ignoring the medical evidence.
Where the medical opinion that the deceased received the stab injury resulting in the puncture
of the lung by which he could not have survived for more than a few minutes or could not
have run or walked few meters and the fact that the body was found 300 meters away from
the place stated by the eye witness,37 merely because there is variance in between medical
evidence and ocular evidence, the ocular evidence does not prevail over medical evidence.38

34
State of MP v Sanjay Rai, AIR 2004 SC 2174
35
Malay Kumar Ganguly v Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221
36
Prakash v State of MP, 2007 Cr.LJ 798 (SC)
37
State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 7 SCC 408
38
Chinguripati Suryanarayana v. State of AP, 1999 Cr.LJ 1201 (AP)

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 13

Where direct evidence is found to be satisfactory and reliable, it cant be rejected in view of
hypothetical expert medical evidence.39 Also if there is conflict in the opinions of expert
medical witnesses, opinion of that expert which supports the direct evidence is ordinarily to
be accepted.40
Where the doctor has not mentioned in his postmortem report that injuries were caused by
gunshot but has said so in the court, it was held that there is no obligation on the doctor to
describe the origin or cause of injuries in the post mortem report as he stated in the court.41
Where the witness adduced evidence that lathis were fitted with iron rings and a heavy blow
with such weapon caused the skull to break, whereas the doctors opinion was that there were
multiple fractures of the skull, the contention of the accused that medical evidence
disapproved the prosecution case cannot be accepted and the medical evidence therefore
admissible.42
Where the injured witness stated that the deceased was beaten twice with a lathi by the
accused and blood started oozing out and her statement was corroborated by the medical
report, minor contradictions in her statement cannot alter the evidence, which prove the basic
fact of the accused causing injury to the deceased.43
Where the ocular evidence is substantially in conformity with medical evidence, the on
consistency relating to distance from which the gunshots were fired between the evidence of
medical expert and ocular evidence is of no significance.44
The testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground of
animosity and relationship, when such ocular evidence45 is corroborated by the expert
opinion of the doctor and ballistic expert, which clearly established the prosecution case
beyond reasonable doubt.46
Where the postmortem report and the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses are
consistent with regard to the nature and number of injuries on the deceased, the testimony of

39
Supra Note 8
40
Purna Palai v. State, 1987 Cr.LJ 1406 (Orissa)
41
State of Punjab v Jugraj Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1083
42
Ramkrishan v. State of UP, AIR 2004 SC 4678
43
Ratan vs . State, 2004 Cr. LJ 486 (Uttarakhand)
44
State v Suraj Singh Yadav, 2004 Cr.LJ 2132 (All)
45
Supra Note 8
46
State of H.P. v Mast Ram, 2004 Cr.LJ 4973 (SC)

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 14

the prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because the doctors who treated the
deceased in the hospital did not mention about all the injuries.47
It is not correct to accord undue importance to the hypothetical answers given by medical
witnesses in order to exclude the account of the eyewitnesses which has to be tested
independently and not treating it as variable to the medical evidences.48
Where there was no cross-examination, whatsoever of the doctor in order to elicit material
information on which the possible argument could have been based and presence of Rigor
Mortis all over the body by itself could not warrant the argument that the death could have
occurred on the previous night, the evidence of the ocular witness could not be dislodged
based on such hypothetical reasons for which no proper grounds were laid.49
Where the eye-witness deposed that the death of the deceased took place as a result of beating
by the accused with a stick, but according to a medical opinion the death of the deceased was
on account of strangulation, the credibility of the evidence of the eye-witness is eroded.50

CHAPTER 7: EVIDENCE OF TRACKING DOGS

Trained dogs are used for detection of crime. The trainer of tracking dogs can give evidence
about the behavior of the dog. The evidence of the tracker dog is also relevant U/s-45.
In Abdul Razak v. State of Maharashtra51 question arises before the Supreme Court whether
the evidence of dog tracking is admissible in evidence and if so, whether this evidence will be
treated at par with the evidence of scientific experts. In this case, Pune Express was derailed
near Miraj Railway Station on 10th Oct, 1966. Sabotage was suspected. The removal of
fishplates was found to be the cause of derailment and accident. The police dog was brought
into service, taken to the scene of crime. After smelling the articles near the affected joint, the
dog ran towards embankment where one fishplate was lying, and then the dog smelt it and
went to a nearby shanty and pounced upon the accused who was a gang man at Miraj
Railway station.
The Supreme Court held that evidence of the trainer of tracking dog is relevant and
admissible in evidence, but the evidence cant be treated at par with the evidence of scientific

47
State of Karnataka v Papanika, 2004 Cr.LJ 4667 (SC)
48
State of MP v Dharkole alias Govind Singh, 2005 Cr.LJ 108 (SC)
49
Mangu Khan v State of Rajasthan, IAR 2005 SC 1912
50
Hanuman Kisanrao Kadam v State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cr.LJ(BNOC) 135 Bom
51
AIR 1970 SC 283

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 15

experts analyzing blood or chemicals.52 The reactions of blood and chemicals cant be
equated with the behavior of dog which is an intelligent animal with many thought processes
similar to the thought processes of human beings. Whenever thought process is involved
there is risk of error and deception. The law is made clear by the Supreme Court by
enunciating the principle that the evidence of dog tracking is admissible, but not ordinarily of
much weight and not at par with the evidence of scientific experts.
Apart from the above fields, there are chemical analyst, explosive experts, mechanical
experts, interpreter, patent expert, hair expert etc. whose opinion is admissible in evidence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital
Ltd.53 has broadly dealt and interpreted the scenario and held that, an expert is a person who
devotes his time and study to a special branch of learning. However, he might have acquired
such knowledge by practice, observation or careful study. The expert is not acting as a judge
or jury. It was further held that in order to bring the evidence of a witness, as that of an
expert, it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special
experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the
subject. The real function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials, together
with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the Court, although not an
expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. An expert is
not a witness of fact (like other witnesses) and his evidence is really of an advisory character.
The duty of the expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the 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. No expert can claim that he could be absolutely
sure that his opinion was correct.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further laid down in the case titled as State of Maharashtra v.
Damus Gopinath Shinde and Others54, that mere assertion without mentioning the data or
basis in support of his opinion is not evidence, even if it comes from an expert. It is held that
such evidence though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no
assistance in arriving at the correct value without examining the expert as a witness in Court.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone.55

52
Supra Note 13
53
2010 (1) CHN (SC)
54
AIR 2000 SC 1691
55
Supra Note 4

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 16

In the case titled as Kabul Singh v. Gurinder Singh56, opinion of the expert was sought
regarding signatures put on a document. However, the expert also gave opinion that certain
digits were changed which opinion was not sought for. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana held that such an opinion should be ignored and that expert should have
confined himself to the relevant facts.
However, there is a probability to lean the opinion of private experts in favour of the party
calling them. In such like cases, when there is a conflict of opinion between the experts, then
the Court is competent to form its own opinion with regard to signatures on a document or
such like matters.57
Another important issue under consideration is that whether the Courts are bound by the
opinion given by an expert on a particular fact in a case. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
answered this question in the case titled as Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar
Mukherjee,58, wherein it has been held that, a Court is not bound by the evidence of the
experts which is to a large extent advisory in nature.
The Courts have full powers to derive its own conclusion upon considering the opinion of the
experts which may be adduced by both sides, cautiously, and upon taking into consideration
the authorities on the point on which he deposes. The opinion could be admitted or denied.
Whether such evidence could be admitted or how much weightage should be given thereto,
lies within the domain and discretion of the Court. The evidence of an expert should,
however, be interpreted like any other evidence59. Thus, it can be concluded that the expert
opinion in numerous matters relating to identification of thumb impression, handwriting,
footprints, fixing paternity, time of death, age of the parties, cause of death, possibility of the
weapons used, disease, injury, sanity and insanity of the parties and other question of science
or trade has become the need of hour and the person having required skill on that subject
(called experts), are allowed to give their opinions in evidence as well as testify to
facts/details leading to their opinion. The opinion of an expert having special skill in that
particular field is relevant for the point of admissibility before the Court of law. There may be
exceptions to this rule, in spite of it when there direct evidence is lacking, then to corroborate
the existing evidence, expert opinion is sought.

56
(1999) 121 PLR 816
57
Supra Note 15
58
Crl. A. Nos. 1191-1194 of 2005
59
Supra Note 4

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 17

CONCLUSION
From the above analysis it may be submitted that evidence of an expert is not a substantive
piece of evidence. The courts do not consider it conclusive. Without independent and reliable
corroboration it may have no value in the eye of law. Once the court accepts an opinion of an
expert, it ceases to be the opinion of the expert and becomes the opinion of the court. The
Courts have full powers to derive its own conclusion upon considering the opinion of the
experts which may be adduced by both sides, cautiously, and upon taking into consideration
the authorities on the point on which he deposes. The opinion could be admitted or denied.
Whether such evidence could be admitted or how much weightage should be given thereto,
lies within the domain and discretion of the Court.

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion

 18

REFERENCES

Acts/Statutes

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Books

1. BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, REVISED BY DR. SURENDRA SAHAI

SRIVASTAVA, 20th EDITION REPRINTED (2015), CENTRAL LAW AGENCY,
ALLAHABAD
2. FIELD, COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE, REVISED BY GOPAL S.
CHATURVEDI, 12th EDITION (2001), DELHI LAW HOUSE, DELHI
3. M.C.SARKAR, S.C.SARKAR & P.C.SARKAR, SARKARS LAW OF EVIDENCE,
REVISED BY SUDIPTO SARKAR, 17th EDITION (2010), LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTH WADHWA, NAGPUR
4. JUTICE MONIR M., THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 8th EDITION REPRINTED (2011),
UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING HOUSE, NEW DELHI
5. PRASAD, B M, AND MOHAN, MANISH, RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE, 25th EDITION (2013), LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTH
WADHWA, NAGPUR

Websites

1. www.indiakanoon.org
2. www.manupatra.com
3. http://lawquestinternational.com/section-45-indian-evidence-act-1872-role-expert-
litigation last accessed on 12.08.2015

Police Informer and Evidence of Tracker: Expert Opinion