• Two kinds of Witness of the basis of
knowledge.
• Who seen the things and have limited
knowledge about it. (Example: eye witness in
murder case)(Their opinion does not matter).
• Who have information and expertise about
the domain then their opinion is also matters
and helps the court to form the opinion on it.
Who is expert
• In Indian Evidence Act,1872, there is no
proper or exact definition of term Expert. An
expert is one who has made the subject upon
which he speaks a matter of study, practice or
observation and he must have a special
knowledge of the subject.
• “An expert is not a witness of fact. His
evidence is of an advisory character”
• Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v Radha Devi, AIR
1989 SC 1966 points out that an ‘expert’ was
defined as “a person who by his training and
experience has acquired the ability to express
an opinion” but an ordinary witness does not
possess this quality.
• “The purpose of expert opinion is two fold.
Firstly, to obtain opinion as to the matter of
skill or science which is in controversy and
Secondly, to exclude the opinion as to the
effect of the evidence in establishing
controverter facts.”
• Section 45: Opinions of experts:
• 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.
• Section 46: Facts bearing upon opinion of experts
• Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they
support or are inconsistent with the opinions of
experts, when such opinions are relevant.
• Section 51: Grounds of opinion, when relevant
• 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.
• 293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.(1) Any document purporting
to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this
section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or
analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used
as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
• (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the
subject- matter of his report.
• (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend
personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear
personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if
such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in
Court on his behalf.
• (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:-(a)
any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
• (b) the Chief Inspector of- Explosives;
• (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
• (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
• (e) the Director 1 , Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic
Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
• (f) the Serologist to the Government.
Types of Expert
• Ballistic expert
• Forensic expert
• Scientist
• Chemical examiner
• Psychiatrist
• Radiologist
• Track Dogs
Evidentiary value of expert opinion:
• As the expert opinion is a weak type of evidence it is usually
considered to be of light value.
• The evidence of expert is not conclusive.
• The opinion of the expert is not binding upon a judge and that
is why the court can refuse to rely on the evidence of an
expert if it is not supported by circumstantial evidences.
• No opinion of an expert is admissible unless he has been
examined as witness. The adverse party has a right and
opportunity of cross-examining the expert. Before expert
testimony can be admitted, “two things must be proved, viz.
• (i) The subject is such that expert testimony is necessary,
• (ii) That the witness in question is really an expert.
Issues with expert opinion in India
• Forest Range Officer v P Mohammed Ali, AIR 1994
SC 120, it was held by the Supreme Court that,
“Expert opinion is only opinion evidence and is not
helpful to the Court in interpretation of the law.
• in Vineet Kumar Chauhan v State of UP, AIR 2008
SC 780, the Supreme Court has held that where
fire-arms are used in a crime, the absence of the
report of a ballistic report is not always fatal to the
• National Bank V. Mercantile : Opinion of expert
should be received with great care and caution
which need not be accepted without any
corroborative evidence.
• Goutam Kundu v. State of Bengal:-Power of
court to order blood test. Except the prima
facie cases there should not be any blood test
for the paternity after analysing the all future
consequences.
• Mahmood v. State of U.P : it is highly unsafe to
punish the accused on the basis of the opinion
of expert.
• Mallapa v. Alkumar: -Ocular evidences should
be preferred on expert evidences.
• Ram Swarup v. State of Rajsthan: Opinion of
expert is not the last word of possibilities
there is so may other possibilities still remain.
Suggestion by the Malimath Committee
• DNA expert should be considered and
included list of expert under 293 (4) of
criminal procedure code.
