Content:-
Expert Opinion Importance
There exists a fundamental principle stipulating the admissibility of the opinions of witnesses endowed with specialised expertise.
This principle holds sway particularly in cases where the subject under scrutiny is of a nature so intricate that individuals lacking pertinent experience are unlikely to discern it accurately without such expert guidance.
Simply put, this pertains to matters bearing resemblance to a science or art, necessitating a foundation of prior training or study to attain a comprehensive understanding of its essence.
The foremost requirement in such instances is the imperative to seek expert opinion.
The testimony of an expert witness concerning technical facets holds significance, provided that it is grounded in specialised knowledge, and the underlying data is deemed acceptable by the court.
The obligation of an expert lies in presenting to the court not only their opinion but also all the pertinent materials supporting it. Subsequently, it falls upon the court to scrutinise the validity and appropriateness of the opinion's foundation and then draw its own conclusions.
This stands in contrast to a witness of factual events, where the presented facts remain immutable and require no interpretation; the witness merely presents them as they are.
Who qualifies as an expert?
An "expert" witness is someone who has dedicated time and effort to delve into a specific field of knowledge, thus possessing specialised skills relevant to the matters on which they are called upon to provide their insights.
Their testimony on such matters is deemed admissible to assist the tribunal in reaching a satisfactory decision.
There isn't a specific criterion outlined regarding the level of expertise, educational background, or experience required for someone to testify as an expert.
Generally, a witness is recognized as an expert if they demonstrate proficiency in a particular art, trade, or profession, along with possessing unique insights and knowledge pertaining to it.
This entails undergoing specialised study or accumulating significant experience in the subject matter. The pivotal inquiry revolves around whether the individual is indeed skilled and possesses ample knowledge.
Determining the competency of a witness to act as an expert is entrusted to the judge. Experts are not tasked with assuming the roles of judges or jurors; rather, the court is responsible for evaluating their opinions and rendering a final decision based on them.
It's noteworthy that an individual doesn't necessarily need to have acquired their expertise through formal professional channels to qualify as a competent expert witness.
For the admissibility of their testimony, it suffices if they have gained specialised experience in the field. This principle was highlighted in the case of Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi and Others, AIR 1989 AIL 133.
In essence, an expert is someone who, through their training and practical experience, possesses the capacity to offer insights and opinions that surpass those of an ordinary witness.
Their testimony is grounded in their expertise and hands-on experience, as exemplified in the case of Abdul Rahman v. State of Mysore, (1972) GLJ407, where the opinion of a seasoned goldsmith regarding the purity of the gold in question was deemed relevant, despite lacking formal qualifications, solely based on his extensive experience.
Role of Expert Opinion
When an individual's competence as a judge hinges primarily on their skill and experience, the court is obligated to give weight to the expert's opinion.
However, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent bias that may exist when an expert witness is aligned with one side, potentially leading to a tendency to favour the employing party's perspective.
Despite this, an expert may adjust their opinion if presented with compelling reasons, and their testimony shouldn't be dismissed solely on the basis of such adjustments.
While courts generally accord a higher degree of acceptability to expert evidence, they aren't bound by it as absolute truth, particularly if the reports lack depth or are unsubstantiated. The primary purpose of expert opinion is to aid the court in reaching a conclusion, but it's not conclusive in itself.
Expert testimony regarding handwriting, for instance, constitutes opinion evidence and typically cannot substitute substantive evidence. Courts typically scrutinise such testimony for corroboration, either through direct or circumstantial evidence.
In the case of UP v Boota Singh, (1979) 1 SCR 298, opinion on handwriting was accepted to corroborate professional statements.
The credibility and competence of an expert are pivotal considerations. If a High Court disbelieves an expert, the Supreme Court typically refrains from intervening, as demonstrated in Kanchan Singh v State of Gujarat, (1979) 2 SCJ 260.
In situations where an expert is engaged by both sides, the court may disallow their testimony to prevent bias, recognizing the challenge of producing an unbiased report under such circumstances.
Regarding disputes involving personal injury caused by premises' disrepair and specific performance claims against a Housing Society, the court in Field v Leeds City Council, (2001) CPLR 129 (CA) emphasised the importance of independent experts with undisputed credentials, even if the designated expert was employed by the Authority, provided they were genuinely qualified for the task.
Courts Not Functus Officio
The court remains unaffected by expert opinions, as they do not render it functus officio. It is not within the expert's purview to act as judge or jury; instead, their role is solely to provide assistance to the court in reaching an independent conclusion.
Expert opinions serve as aids rather than binding directives, leaving the court with the discretion to accept or reject them.
However, interpretations by technical bodies on purely technical matters are typically accorded acceptance unless they are deemed arbitrary or unreasonable.
As aptly expressed by the Calcutta High Court, the duty of an expert is to depose, not decide, furnishing data with scientific criteria to enable the judge to form an independent judgement.
The Supreme Court succinctly outlines the approach to expert evidence, emphasising that while courts generally view such evidence favourably, they are not obliged to adhere to expert reports, especially if they appear perfunctory or are biased.
Eyewitness accounts deemed credible may outweigh medical opinions suggesting alternative possibilities.
In one instance, the court declined to accept the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding a substance as "opium," deeming it non-binding and instead conducted its own analysis, considering relevant legal provisions.
Judicial Precedents on Expert Evidence
Gopala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2184
The Supreme Court emphasised that while expert evidence is admissible, it carries inherent weaknesses. Courts refrain from treating it as conclusive, necessitating independent and reliable corroboration.
Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 364
In cases where eyewitness accounts diverge regarding the cause of injury, the Supreme Court underscored that the unimpeachable testimony of eyewitnesses prevails over medical evidence.
Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326
The Court established that direct evidence, such as testimony from a witness present during the act of writing, holds significant weight in proving handwriting, rendering other forms of evidence unnecessary.
Latest v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66
Highlighting the primacy of oral evidence, the Court ruled that medical evidence takes precedence unless it unequivocally contradicts the occurrence in question.
Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 770
The Court clarified that the absence of a magisterial order authorising the collection of fingerprints does not render the evidence illegal, thus upholding its admissibility.
State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and others, (1999) 7 SCC 280
To elevate witness testimony to expert status, the Court mandates a demonstration of specialised knowledge or experience in the subject matter.
M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1
The weight accorded to expert evidence hinges on the verifiability and objectivity of the underlying science. A more developed and verifiable science commands greater deference, reducing the likelihood of erroneous opinions.
Comments