Expert evidence and Evidence act and CRPC

Legally speaking, an expert is a person, who specializes in a field of

knowledge, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without
having been a witness to any occurrence relating tothe lawsuit or a criminal
case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in the trial,
provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise,
training or special knowledge. If the expert is challenged, the attorney for
the party calling the ‘expert’ must show necessary background through
questions in court.

of the people who have acquired special knowledge and skill on those
matters. Conditions for the admissibility of expert opinion are:

1. That the dispute can’t be resolved without expert opinion

2. That the witness expressing the opinion is an expert.

Duties of an expert

 An expert is not a witness of fact

 His evidence is of advisory character
 An export deposes and does not decide
 An expert has to furnish necessary scientific evidence to the judge
so that he can frame independent judgments by application of such
evidence.

There is a big difference between expert evidence as well as the evidence

given by the ordinary person. An expert gives his opinion on a particular
field of knowledge such as fingerprint, handwriting, etc. which is of an
advisory character. The court can’t pass an order of conviction purely on
this basis as it is not conclusive.

An expert gives his opinion on his experience, skills, and knowledge in that
particular field.  On the other hand, an ordinary witness states the fact in
connection with that particular incident only. The opinion of a normal
witness is non-admissible. The court may pass an order by the evidence
given by the eyewitness. A normal witness provides facts of the incident
what he had seen heard or perceived.
Admissibility of expert evidence

Expert opinion will be admissible only when the expert is examined as a

witness in the court. The opinion of the expert will not be admissible in the
court unless the expert gives proper reasons for his opinion and it is being
tested during the cross-examination by the adverse party.

But to curtail the delay and expenses involving in securing assistance of

experts, the law has provided certain provisions regarding the examination
of scientific experts.

According to Section 293 CrPC, the report of certain Government scientific

experts provided under this section will be held admissible as evidence in
inquiry, trial or other proceedings of the court, if the court can summon or
examine the experts. It is argued that after all, the expert is a human being
and however impartial he may be, he will be producing certain evidence and
opinions for the party which calls him to an extent.

One of the rules of caution that all courts follow as regards expert opinion is
that they must never surrender their free will or independence to an expert.
In all cases, wherein expert evidence is needed, the court must after giving it
proper importance, make up its mind on the issue upon which expert
testimony is given.

There are some cases which give us a clear picture regarding the importance
and admissibility of expert and the evidence produced by them. In the case
of Kishan Chand v. Sita Ram, the court stated that the opinions of the
experts on the question whether the same person wrote two or more
documents, or different persons are relevant.

Conflicts of opinions of experts lead to the discretion of the Court in forming

its decision looking into the signatures on such documents.

There are various other cases such as Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab,
where the Court questioned the opinion of the expert by stating that both
evidence provided by the normal witness as well as expert evidence are
colliding.

Thus, the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused
person and hence the accused was held free. Such cases state that expert
evidence can also be questioned in the court when they are in collision with
the actual evidence or the evidence produced by a normal person regarding
the case.

Conclusion

From the above, it is very clear that an expert and his evidence plays a
crucial role in the case in which he/she has made an opinion. Usually, the
opinion of an expert is taken in the fields of medical science, during the time
of the death of a person, regarding the age of parties, cause of death, nature
and kind of weapons used disease, injury, sanity or insanity of a person, etc.
Now a day, DNA test is also used in fixing the paternity of the child in family
law in connection with the maintenance and legitimacy of that child.

A witness, whether expert or not, must be competent in providing certain

evidence or documents supporting his/her evidence only if he/she is
competent to do so. Unless and until they are not, they will be not regarded
as a proper witness under the tagline of experts. It is not mandatory that a
court must look only into the opinion of one single person; the court has its
discretion to examine one or more experts depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case concerned.

As there are certain provisions regarding who has to be an expert under the
Evidence Act, the Court will not find any difficulty in deciding the cases
involving expert testimonies as the court itself is equipped with proper
guidelines by the said statutes of our country. On the whole, an expert
evidence makes a case or the facts of the case much more relevant that it
was in the past. It also makes it clear that an act can be made more
particular when it is corroborated by expert evidence.

Refer to the link :

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1583/Experts-Opinion-and-its-
admissibility-and-relevancy---Law-of-Evidence.html