Who is an Expert? Discuss the Probative Value of an Expert Witness
Who is an Expert?
In layman, language expert means a person specially skilled.
An Expert is a person who, by practice and observation, has become experienced in a particular area of study. An Expert is a person who has devoted time to learn about any field. And due to that, he has become skilled in that field wherein he is requested to give his opinion.
The term Expert implies higher knowledge and practical experience in an art or profession.
Generally, nothing more is required to entitle one to give testimony as an expert than that he knows a particular art or profession. Only when it is proven that the person giving the evidence is an expert, the evidence is admissible.
If the court finds that the person who has given evidence is not an expert, then the opinion of that person is not considered.
What is Expert Evidence?
Generally, the opinion or beliefs of the third person is irrelevant and not admissible.
Witnesses are to state the facts only. For example, what they saw?, what they heard or perceived through any other sense.
In some cases, the court is unable to form a correct judgement without the help of an expert. In such cases, the advice of an expert is to obtain. That time expert evidence is admitted to enable the court to form a correct judgement.
Matters like science, art, trade, handwriting, finger impressions, and foreign law, etc. come under Expert evidence. The rule admitting expert evidence originates due to necessity.
The Probative Value of Expert Evidence
Testimony of experts is not viewed as of high value as it can be partial in favour of the side which calls them.
The Privy Council has also observed that no evidence can be as unsatisfactory as of an expert which the interested party has called.
In Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat, the Supreme Court observed that the mere comparison of handwriting must, at best, can be held as a piece of positive evidence in the case.
In Emperor v. Ramrao Mangesh, the judge held that expert evidence as a mode of proof is permissible, but it is of Hazardous and inconclusive nature. And the method of proving disputed handwriting is accepted by the courts with great caution as it is indeed unsafe to base a conviction on the unreliable opinion of a handwriting expert.
Evidence of Age:
In Emperor v. Qudrat, the Allahabad High Court held that the opinion of a doctor regarding a person’s age based on his height, weight and teeth does not amount to legal proof of the age of the person.
Fingerprint Expert:
The court may accept the evidence of a fingerprint expert without any corroboration. However, the court should be careful not to delegate its authority to a third party. The court should be satisfied that the accused is guilty; the court cannot hold the accused guilty just because the expert said so guilty. The court must satisfy itself as to the value of the evidence of the expert in the same way as it must satisfy itself of the other evidence.
Handwriting Expert:
In Murari Lal v. The State of M.P., the Supreme Court observed that handwriting experts need not be invariably corroborated. The court has to decide whether to accept such evidence or not. This question should be approached by a court cautiously, and only after examining the reasoning behind the expert opinion and considering all other pieces of evidence, the court should reach its conclusion.
The court also observed that the court has the power to compare the handwriting itself and to decide the matter. Not necessary to produce a handwriting expert.
Science or Art:
The term ‘Science’ is not limited to the higher sciences. And the ‘Art’ is not restricted to fine arts but having its original sense of handicraft, trade, profession, and skill in work, which with the advance of culture, has been carried beyond the sphere of ordinary pursuits of life into that of artistic and scientific action.
Evidence of Typewriter:
In Hanumant v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court held that the opinion of a person that a letter was typed on a particular typewriter is not admissible as it does not fall within Section 45.
Dog Tracking:
In Abdul Razak v. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court observed that though the evidence of dog tracking is acceptable, it does not have much weight.
The opinion of Non-Experts is received when?
Generally, the opinions of ordinary persons are not relevant. However, there are certain exceptions. In some cases, the advice of ordinary persons is admissible in court. In such cases, from the very nature of the subject in issue, it cannot state or describe in such language as will enable persons, not an eyewitness, to form an accurate judgement regarding it.
Judicial Decisions which shows that the opinions of non-experts are received, inter alias, as follows:
- In Sydleman v. Beckwith: The disposition or temper of an animal.
- In Bass Fumace Co. v. Glasscock: Matters of colour, weight, state of similar facts.
- In Bell v. Bearman: The age of the person.
- In S. v. Match: A man and woman were intimate.
- In Bizer v. Bizer: Parties on the bed seemed to have sexual intercourse.
- In Harbison v. Lemon: That a person was intoxicated.
By : AANCHAL RAWAT
For more information Visit Our Site
To submit your work : Call for Blogs
