SECTION 45: OPINIONS OF EXPERTS (IEA, 1872) {taken from IEA, 1872}
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, science, or art, or as to the 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 the identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such people are called experts.
Illustrations
When someone is summoned to court as a witness, the expectation is that they’ll present facts rather than offer opinions. It’s the court’s responsibility to form an opinion based on the case presented. Typically, a witness should have direct relevance to the case, but there’s an exception for experts. Even if not directly related, experts are called as witnesses to provide opinions aiding the court in delivering justice from a wider viewpoint. This is due to the impracticality of expecting judges to possess comprehensive knowledge of various specialized fields. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 outlines statutes concerning expert opinions.
KEY POINTS:
WHO IS AN EXPERT?
An expert is defined as an individual proficient in a specific craft, trade, or profession, possessing specialized knowledge in that area.
Lord Russell’s perspective asserts that anyone possessing skill or substantial knowledge in a specific field qualifies as an expert. If a person has acquired any special experience or special training in a particular subject to which the court’s enquiry relates, such a person can be considered an expert.
An expert functions in a domain that surpasses common understanding. While not mandated to be a professional earning a livelihood through such testimony, an expert must have invested considerable time and study in the subject to ensure the reliability of their evidence (Krishnamachari, 2017).
VALUE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
Information provided by an expert holds validity and admissibility in court. Contradiction of an expert’s data or report by oral testimony doesn’t render the data irrelevant. Section 46 stipulates that if evidence contradicts an expert’s opinion, it becomes significant. The importance of an expert’s opinion relies on the evidence it’s based upon and the expert’s capability to form a reliable opinion.
The court may excuse the physical presence of the specialist unless explicitly required. In such instances, the expert can designate a knowledgeable representative well-versed in the case’s facts and studies to address the court on their behalf.
If a judge only relies on the expert’s opinion and not on the evidence and the testimony of ordinary witnesses to give judgment, then the case is weak. This is because, while an individual is an expert in his profession, he cannot be considered a direct witness and cannot state the facts of the case. He only gives an opinion according to the facts presented to him and does not draw a judgment in all cases concerning the guilt of the accused.
Because the evidence presented by an expert is an opinion rather than testimony based on verifiable observations, it is given little importance. Consequently, eyewitnesses or other witnesses providing factual accounts are often favored over expert opinions. This preference is because factual evidence holds precedence over opinions, as evidence based on concrete substance is considered more compelling than expert opinion. No expert can say that he can be completely certain that his opinion is correct, that the expert relies to a great extent on the materials placed before him and the essence of the question put to him.
The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert, however, depends on the facts and circumstances. A medical expert’s DNA report has great weight in cases concerning parentage disputes. If the expert concludes that the child’s DNA matches that of the alleged parents, it constitutes a crucial and valid fact in determining parentage.
However, in contrast, when a handwriting expert assesses a signature match, the opinion may not hold as much importance. This is due to the possibility that an individual might have intentionally replicated or forged the signature, compromising the accuracy and reliability of the expert’s assessment. Hence, in comparison to DNA evidence, the significance of handwriting analysis might be lower in certain cases where deliberate imitation could undermine its validity. DNA cannot be replicated or altered.
The difference between evidence of an Expert and Evidence of an ordinary Witness
SIGNIFICANCE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Section 45 ensures that expert opinions, when relevant and reliable, are admissible as evidence in court. It serves as a mechanism to aid in the fair and just resolution of legal disputes by leveraging specialized knowledge and expertise.
CHALLENGES AND CONTROVERSIES
Courts often rely on precedents and established guidelines to evaluate the admissibility and reliability of expert opinions. Establishing clearer standards for expertise and ensuring transparency in methodologies can help address these challenges within Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, improving its effectiveness in legal proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, acts as a bridge between specialized knowledge and legal proceedings. It highlights the recognition that certain matters require expertise beyond the understanding of an average person. However, the court must exercise caution in relying on expert opinions, ensuring a fair and impartial administration of justice.
Note: For in-depth legal analysis, consulting with a qualified legal professional is advisable.
REFERENCES
In the current digital age, where technology permeates every aspect of our lives, the frequency of cybercrime has sharply increased. The spectrum of illicit activities has broadened into the limitless ...
Post comments (0)