Leading Supreme Court Judgment on appreciation of evidence of Expert witness

An expert witness, is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice, or observation; and he must have a special knowledge of the subject. Shri P.C. Panwar in his evidence has stated that he passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) Hons. from University of Delhi in 1959; thereafter he did his M.Sc. (Hon.) in 1967 from Punjab University. He joined the Agricultural Department in the year 1969 as a Research Assistant; he was promoted as Horticulture Development officer in the year 1973 and at the time of the assessment he was working as District Horticulture Officer, Shimla. He has also stated that in the year 1986 he attended a 3 months training course on apple technology in the University of Tasmania Australia. The assessment in the Orchards in question were made on different dates in November 1984. He has fairly accepted the suggestion that he had not received any training with respect to assessment of apple crop but that has been a part of his job. The witness could not state the number of scab cases in which he had been called upon to make assessment. He has specifically stated in the case against Jai Lal and others that was his first and last assignment till date as a commission for assessing productivity of an apple orchard.

15. On a perusal it is clear that many entries in the report need to be explained. Many of the trees of the orchards; their expected production of the tree is shown as nil. No reason whatsoever is stated in the report why the witness felt that the tree had no productive capacity. The assessment made by this witness appears to have been made on some sort of calculation the basis of which is not stated in the report; nor does the report disclose the reason for the end-result arrived at by the assessor. While judging the acceptability and reliability of the report it is to be borne in mind that Shri Panwar visited the Orchards only in the succeeding year and that too after the apple season of that year was over. Judged in this background the High Court cannot be faulted for having held that the report of the assessor is based more on surmises and conjunctures than actual observations or on scientific reasons.

17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that 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 identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

18. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.

19. The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross-examination. This Court in the case of Hazi Mohammed Ikramul Hague v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0116/1958 : AIR1959SC488 concurred with the finding of the High Court in not placing any reliance upon the evidence of an expert witness on the ground that his evidence was merely an opinion unsupported by any reasons.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl.A. No. 530 of 1997 etc.

Decided On: 13.09.1999

State of Himachal Pradesh  Vs.  Jai Lal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.T. Thomas and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1999 SC 3318,1999 (7) SCC 280

Print Page

Whether expert in foreign law can apply foreign law to facts of case before court?

What he would not be entitled to do,
however, is apply what he believes to be the foreign law in question to the facts of
the case before him and to recommend a solution. That has always been within
the exclusive province of the Court deciding the matter. This is to my mind is a
point of distinction between foreign law as a body of learning and other scientific
disciplines. A court, given its legal training, would be perfectly capable of applying
foreign law, once it is ascertained, to the facts before it. However, in respect of
other fields of inquiry, such as medicine, odontology or psychiatry, an expert
witness may legitimately bring his learning to bear upon the facts of the case in
expressing his opinion, which the Court would then proceed to weigh in the
balance along with other factors in deciding the ultimate issue. Indeed, expert
evidence of this nature would not be meaningful unless it bore upon the facts in
question. Even here, however, the role of the expert is not, as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observes in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. &
Ors.(supra), that of a judge or jury and the task of adjudication falls upon the
court alone.

22. If one were to test the evidence of Mr. Keel against this touchstone viz., an
expert in foreign law would be entitled to express an opinion as to what the law is,
but not apply that law to the facts before the Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1428 OF 2015
IN
SUIT NO. 536 OF 2011

DHIRAJLAL ALIAS DHIRUBHAI BABARIA AND ANR. … 
V
NAVINBHAI C. DAVE & ANR.
 CORAM: S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.
 Dated : 29th August, 2017

Print Page

What is the difference between an expert witness and a fact witness?

The fundamental difference between an expert witness and a fact witness is generally as follows: 

A fact witness usually provides testimony regarding what has happened in a given situation – he testifies as someone who has seen the situation, been involved in the situation in some way, and/or has some personal knowledge of the situation. An expert witness generally provides testimony as to how or why the situation occurred – he has analyzed the situation and gives his opinion based on his knowledge, training and experience as to the causes of the situation. In giving his opinion, an expert witness may testify using facts related to causation to support his opinion. 

In brief: The fact witness testifies that an assault occurred; the expert witness testifies that the assault occurred because the conditions/environment (such as lighting, lack of guards, etc.) were such that the assault was able to occur.

By-
Jon C. Paul, CPP,
Court-recognized Expert Witness,
Greater Milwaukee Area,
United States of America.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert interested witness for grant of compensation for trees under land acquisition case?

The appellant assails the credibility of the oral evidence of C.W.47 on the ground that he was an interested witness. Though he was admittedly a retired Professor of Agricultural from the Annamalai University, the appellant claims that he was an interested witness, as he himself was one of the claimants.

33. But, we are unable to sustain the above objection. Merely because C.W.47 was also a claimant in a few Original Petitions, his expertise cannot be doubted or belittled. The oral testimony of a person who happens to have an interest in the case and who also is an expert in the field need not always be rejected. As a matter of fact, it is permitted in the Law of Evidence for the parties to a dispute, to examine the experts as witnesses on either side. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, every expert brought by one of the parties to a litigation could be treated as an interested witness. Even in criminal cases, the law is well settled that the evidence of a person cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is related to the deceased. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gangabhavani vs. Royapatti Venkat Reddy, such an evidence may require careful scrutiny, but it can certainly be relied upon, if it has a ring of truth in it and is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the objection of the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the evidence of C.W.47.

Madras High Court

The Special Tahsildar vs Thangarasu

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian
and 
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan


Appeal Suit Nos. 20 of 2014 to 61 of 2014

Dated: 29.7.2015

Print Page

What is difference between expert opinion and testimony of facts?

 Expert evidence needs to be given a closer scrutiny and
requires a different approach while initiating proceedings under
Section 340 of CrPC. After all, it is an opinion given by an expert
and a professional and that too especially when the expert

himself has lodged a caveat regarding his inability to form a
definite opinion without the required material. The duty of an
expert is to furnish the court his opinion and the reasons for his
opinion along with all the materials. It is for the court thereafter to
see whether the basis of the opinion is correct and proper and
then form its own conclusion. But, that is not the case in respect
of a witness of facts. Facts are facts and they remain and have to
remain as such forever. The witness of facts does not give his
opinion on facts; but presents the facts as such. However, the
expert gives an opinion on what he has tested or on what has
been subjected to any process of scrutiny. The inference drawn
thereafter is still an opinion based on his knowledge. In case,
subsequently, he comes across some authentic material which
may suggest a different opinion, he must address the same, lest
he should be branded as intellectually dishonest. Objective
approach and openness to truth actually form the basis of any
expert opinion.
21. In National Justice Compania Naviera SA v.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The "Ikarian Reefer")
[1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455, theQueen’s Bench (Commercial Division) even went to the extent of

holding that the expert has the freedom in such a situation to
change his views. It was stated that “if an expert's opinion is not
properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is
available, then this must be stated with an indication that the
opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an
expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that
the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be
stated in the report”.
22. Hence, merely because an expert has tendered an opinion
while also furnishing the basis of the opinion and that too without
being conclusive and definite, it cannot be said that he has
committed perjury so as to help somebody. And, mere rejection of
the expert evidence by itself may not also warrant initiation of

proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 9-10 OF 2016
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 7153-7154/2013)

PREM SAGAR MANOCHA  V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 

Citation; 2016 CRLJ1090 SC,(2016) 4 SCC 571

Print Page

When prosecution should not initiated against expert witness for Perjury?

In National Justice Compania Naviera SA v.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The "Ikarian Reefer")[1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455
, the Queen’s Bench (Commercial Division) even went to
 the extent of
holding that the expert has the freedom in such a situation to
change his views. It was stated that “if an expert's opinion is not
properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is
available, then this must be stated with an indication that the
opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an
expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that
the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be
stated in the report”.
Hence, merely because an expert has tendered an opinion
while also furnishing the basis of the opinion and that too without
being conclusive and definite, it cannot be said that he has
committed perjury so as to help somebody. And, mere rejection of
the expert evidence by itself may not also warrant initiation of
proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC.
 It is significant to note that the appellant’s opinion that
the cartridges appeared to have been fired from different firearms
was based on the court’s insistence to give the opinion without

examining the firearm. In other words, it was not even his
voluntary, let alone deliberate deposition, before the court.
Therefore, it is unjust, if not unfair, to attribute any motive to the
appellant that there was a somersault from his original stand in
the written opinion. As a matter of fact, even in the written
opinion, appellant has clearly stated that a definite opinion in
such a situation could be formed only with the examination of the
suspected firearm, which we have already extracted in the
beginning. Thus and therefore, there is no somersault or shift in
the stand taken by the appellant in the oral examination before
court.
The impugned proceedings initiated against the appellant
under Section 340 of CrPC are hence quashed.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 9-10 OF 2016
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 7153-7154/2013)
PREM SAGAR MANOCHA 
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
Dated;January 6, 2016.
KURIAN, J.:
Citation:AIR 2016 SC 290

Print Page

When Expert witness should not be treated as hostile witness?

The question whether, on the inconsistent statements made by an expert witness, who was called upon to act as an expert witness and to furnish his opinion on any particular aspect, he could be treated as a hostile witness, has come in for consideration, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the' respondent, in a case before the Supreme Court in Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi), MANU/SC/0029/2016 : AIR 2016 SC 290 and the Supreme Court has expressed as follows:--

"Expert evidence needs to be given a closer scrutiny and requires a different approach while initiating proceedings under' Section 340 of Cr PC. After all, it is an opinion given by an expert and a professional and that too especially when the expert himself has lodged a caveat regarding his inability to form a definite opinion without the required material. The duty of an expert is to furnish the Court his opinion and the reasons for his opinion along with all the materials. It is for the Court thereafter to see whether the basis of the opinion is correct and proper and then form its own conclusion. But, that is not the case in respect of a witness of facts. Facts are facts and they remain and have to remain as such forever. The witness of facts does not give his opinion on facts; but presents the facts as such. However, the expert gives an opinion on what he had tested or on what has been subjected to any process of scrutiny. The inference drawn thereafter is still an opinion based on his knowledge. In case, subsequently, he comes across some authentic material which may suggest a different opinion, he must address the same, lest he should be branded as intellectually dishonest. Objective approach and openness to truth actually form the basis of any expert; opinion."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Writ Petition No. 29772 of 2015 (GM-FC)

Decided On: 12.02.2016

 D.R. Lakshmi Narayana Guptha  Vs. K.R. Archana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anand Byrareddy, J.

Citation;AIR 2016 karnat67

Print Page

When prosecution for perjury U/S 340 of CRPC should not be initiated against expert witness?

 Expert evidence needs to be given a closer scrutiny and
requires a different approach while initiating proceedings under
Section 340 of CrPC. After all, it is an opinion given by an expert
and a professional and that too especially when the expert

himself has lodged a caveat regarding his inability to form a
definite opinion without the required material. The duty of an
expert is to furnish the court his opinion and the reasons for his
opinion along with all the materials. It is for the court thereafter to
see whether the basis of the opinion is correct and proper and
then form its own conclusion. But, that is not the case in respect
of a witness of facts. Facts are facts and they remain and have to
remain as such forever. The witness of facts does not give his
opinion on facts; but presents the facts as such. However, the
expert gives an opinion on what he has tested or on what has
been subjected to any process of scrutiny. The inference drawn
thereafter is still an opinion based on his knowledge. In case,
subsequently, he comes across some authentic material which
may suggest a different opinion, he must address the same, lest
he should be branded as intellectually dishonest. Objective
approach and openness to truth actually form the basis of any
expert opinion.
21. In National Justice Compania Naviera SA v.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The "Ikarian Reefer")[1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455, the
Queen’s Bench (Commercial Division) even went to the extent of
holding that the expert has the freedom in such a situation to
change his views. It was stated that “if an expert's opinion is not
properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is
available, then this must be stated with an indication that the
opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an
expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that
the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be
stated in the report”.
22. Hence, merely because an expert has tendered an opinion
while also furnishing the basis of the opinion and that too without
being conclusive and definite, it cannot be said that he has
committed perjury so as to help somebody. And, mere rejection of
the expert evidence by itself may not also warrant initiation of
proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC.
23. It is significant to note that the appellant’s opinion that
the cartridges appeared to have been fired from different firearms
was based on the court’s insistence to give the opinion without

examining the firearm. In other words, it was not even his
voluntary, let alone deliberate deposition, before the court.
Therefore, it is unjust, if not unfair, to attribute any motive to the
appellant that there was a somersault from his original stand in
the written opinion. As a matter of fact, even in the written
opinion, appellant has clearly stated that a definite opinion in
such a situation could be formed only with the examination of the
suspected firearm, which we have already extracted in the
beginning. Thus and therefore, there is no somersault or shift in
the stand taken by the appellant in the oral examination before
court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 9-10 OF 2016
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 7153-7154/2013)
PREM SAGAR MANOCHA 
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
Citation; 2016 CRLJ1090 SC,(2016) 4 SCC 571

Print Page

Whether Report of handwriting expert is relied on even though he is not examined in court?

 Proceeding now to consider the matter on merits, we have already observed that the learned trial Court has found that the will had been duly executed by relying upon the report of the Handwriting Expert and other witnesses. We may mention here that of all kinds of evidence which are admissible the opinion evidence is of the weakest kind The expert evidence has been made admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act'which reads as under :

"When the Court is to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of any legal or physical expressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or on the questions as to identity of any legal or physical expressions are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts."

28. In the words of Rogers, an expert in any science, art or trade is one who by practice and observation has become experienced therein. An expert, therefore, really means a person who by reason of his training or experience is qualified to express an opinion whereas an ordinary witness is not competent to do so. His evidence is only an opinion evidence which is based on his special skill or experience. In view of the language of Section 45, it is necessary that before a person can be characterised as an expert, it is necessary that there must be some material on the record to show that he is one who is skilled in that particular science and is possessed of peculiar knowledge concerning the same. He must have made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein. Thus before the testimony of a witness becomes admissible, his competency as an expert must be shown, may be, by showing that he was possessed of necessary qualification or that he has acquired special skill therein by experience. Apart from the question that the report of a handwriting expert may be read in evidence, what is necessary is that the expert should be subjected to cross-examination because an expert like any other witness is fallible and the real value of his evidence consists in the rightful inferences which he draws from what he has himself observed and not from what he merely surmises.

29. Unfortunately in the present case after the report of the Handwriting Experts from either side had been submitted for admission in evidence, a statement was made that their reports may be read in evidence without formal proof. The question arises whether such a report can ipso facto become opinion evidence in the case. It has been urged that even though the reports as a document can be read in evidence but in the absence of the expert appearing as a witness and being subjected to cross-examination, his report alone cannot be treated as evidence much less an opinion evidence. Apart from this even a reading of the report does not disclose that the person who has given the report was really an expert in this particular branch or that he had acquired necessary skill by experience. The letter head on which the report is typed alone will not prove that the person was an expert. There is thus no material on the record to show that the persons who have submitted their reports regarding, the disputed handwriting were qualified as experts within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In a situation like this, the reports were not at all admissible in evidence and the learned trial Court was certainly in error in placing reliance thereon. The experts' evidence is only a piece of evidence and the weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence as evidence of this nature is ordinarily not conclusive. Such evidence, therefore, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence but is there to corroborate the other evidence.

Allahabad High Court

Balkrishna Das Agarwal vs Smt. Radha Devi And Ors. on 9 December, 1988

Equivalent citations: AIR 1989 All 133

Bench: N Mithal, K Birla

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of handwriting expert?

I am in no way inclined to discredit the value of such expert testimony, which, in some cases especially, may be conclusive, or, at any rate, of great importance, but I cannot help thinking that it is extremely dangerous to generalise in the way the experts have done when the questioned writing has been executed daring a state bordering on prostration. It appears to me most unsafe to accept the expert opinion regarding the shakiness, tremulousness, want of care or excess of care in a writer writing under such conditions, and it may be noticed in this case that neither of the experts has even stated that he possesses much experience regarding the writings of a sick man. After all, in such circumstances, it is the human factor which has to be taken into consideration and this human factor is capable of producing many variations and inconsistencies. At the most, I would hold that the handwriting expert evidence in this case has raised some slight suspicion as to the genuineness of the document; but this Blight suspicion is of no moment unless strongly confirmed in other ways.

Equivalent Citation: 59Ind. Cas.220,3LLJ110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAHORE

Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 1920

Decided On: 04.12.1920

 Hari Singh  Vs. Sardarni Lachhmi Devi

Coram:Shadi Lal, C.J., and Leslie Jones, J.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert witness?

The courts, normally would look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory and unsustainable. We agree that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion but such report is not a conclusive one. This Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. As discussed earlier, serious doubts arise about the cause of death stated in the post-mortem reports.

Supreme Court of India

Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Citation : (2015)7 SCC178

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert in land acquisition case?

 The claimant has led evidence of an expert witness.
Though   the   integrity   of   the   expert   witness   cannot   be
questioned,   his   report   leaves   much   to   be   desired.     His
evidence   shows   that   for   his   valuation   he   considered   the
value of the land plus the depreciated cost of construction.
He enumerated the methods of calculation of the valuation

of the land by viz., comparable sale instances, development
method and capitalisation method.  
19. He had taken search in the office of the sub registrar in
respect of the acquired land, which was indispensable.  He
deposed that he himself did not carry out the search.   His
assistant did. He knows that a fee is to be paid and a receipt
is given for such search.  He could not produce it.  He did
not know how many sub registrar's offices are concerned
with   the   property.     He   did   not   remember   whether   his
assistant   was   sent   to   the   place   where   the   property   was
situated.  He did not know where his assistant was directed
to attend.  He did not know the sub registrar's jurisdiction.
He   did   not   know   whether   the   sub   registrar's   offices   at
Chembur would have jurisdiction in respect of the acquired
land or whether that office had started at the relevant time. 
20. He agreed that the valuation of the property depends
upon its location, size and condition and those details would
be required to be ascertained.  His evidence shows that he
had visited the property at the time of making his report and
had not seen the structures.  He failed to obtain details about
the   use   of   the   structures   and   the   encumbrance   by   the
tenants.   He did not know that the plans of the property
would be available with the TLR's office.  What he knew was
that the occupants were not permanent tenants.   He was

informed   by   the   owner  that   it   was   something   like   guest
house.   Though he knew that the information about the
tenants could be available from the municipal assessment
department, he did not obtain it.  He admitted that he would
require to value the property not upon what he saw at the
time   of   his   visit,   but   at   the   time   of   the   notification   for
acquisition.  Yet he had not verified the documents.  
21. His observations were on the basis of what he saw
when   he   visited   the   suit   property   to   prepare   his   report.
Accordingly   he   observed   that   the   plot   was   levelled,   that
there were no structures and he did not know the precise
measurement.  His entire report is based only on information
given by the client which he had not verified though it was
verifiable from the municipal records.  His entire valuation
report without accounting for the size, type and extent of the
structures is, therefore, completely flawed.  He admitted and
accepted that the valuation of a structure would be different
if   it   was   authorised   or   not   authorised   and   that   the
authorisation could be seen from the plan of the structures
or   of   the   suit   property.     Though   being   a   professional
architect, he did not demand the documentation, but relied
upon  the information of  his  client alone.   He,  therefore,
could not account for the fact whether the occupants were
“temporary or permanent”.   Though admitting that the cost
of construction varies with the nature of construction, he has

not accounted for the construction.   He only accepted the
information of the claimant with regard to the structures and
consequently he did not know the age of the structures or its
valuation   with   regard   to   the   materials   used   for   the
construction.
22. Though there were no trees when he visited the suit
property on the acquired land he has given valuation of the
trees.   Despite admitting that the age and the yield of the
trees is important he has not taken any steps to ascertain
either.  He has made the valuation on the basis of his own
judgment and without accounting for the age, size or the
yield of the trees.  He has admitted that since there were no
trees on the acquired land when he inspected it, he only
relied upon the information of the claimant without even
verifying the report of the joint inspection. 
23. He has mentioned about the movables on the acquired
land being the tank, fencing, pump etc.  He has not verified
any documentary evidence with regard to these items.   He
took no steps to collect those details.  He knew that when an
electric meter is installed, it belongs to the electric company
and that the deposit would be refunded when the meter is
surrendered.  He claimed for the meter without verifying the
refund obtained by his client.   He disputed that it was the
property of the electric company.  He claimed compensation

for   2   water   tanks   also   on   the   oral   information   of   the
claimant without verification of the nature and size of the
tank, the material used for its construction or the date of its
purchase.
24. He   claimed   for   the   fencing   on   the   basis   of   the
information given by the claimant alone. 
25. He claimed an area of 572.50 m² without physically
measuring the same and from the property register.
26. He   admitted   the   concept   of   developed   land.     He
deposed that the acquired land is almost in the centre of the
developed area in the development plan. He was not shown
the joint inventory though he was aware that joint survey
was carried out.   He did not verify the report of the joint
survey which is a public document and could be applied for
by him.  Because at the time of his inspection there were no
structures on the land he concluded that the land was not
encroached upon.  
27. He   did not call for the income tax returns, the rent
received, the assessment bills, the plan of the land or any
such documentary evidence which would be easily available
with   the   claimant   or   which   could   be   obtained   from   the
public authorities. 

28. He has provided for loss of business for which he has
shown the value of the business, but he had not taken any
steps to ascertain what business the claimant was carrying
on on the acquired land.  He would need the figures of the
income of the last 3 years prior to the acquisition.  Since in
his opinion no other details to assess the compensation for
loss   of   business   was   necessary,   he   did   not   verify   any
documents showing the business of the claimant to compute
its loss.  He did not know that the claimant had claimed an
income   of   Rs.9000/­   p.a   from   fire   wood   business   and
Rs.15,000/­ p.a as rent from the residential premises.   He
computed the profits of the business of the claimant only
from the information given by the claimant. 
29. He   has   admitted   that   he   could   not   find   any   new
development around the acquired land at the time of his visit
also or the fact of no access to the land which is admitted by
the claimant as also the encroachments along the east side of
the land also admitted by the claimant.  Consequently these
are the aspects not accounted for by him in his report. 
30. He admitted that the Mahul village road was not fully
developed, and was to be widened in the revised sanctioned
development plan.

31. He claimed 30% advantage in respect of the acquired
land.   For that purpose he has not compared the acquired
land with any other land to verify the physical condition.  He
relied upon only his visit to the suit land at the time of the
report. 
32. Upon   seeing   the   evidence   of   the   claimant   and   the
expert witness no case for interfering with the valuation put
by the SLAO is made out.  

The above evidence shows that no such case is made out.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2006
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (7)
And
Pundalik Raghunath Mahulkar  ...Claimant
And
The Commissioner of Gr. Mumbai, 
Municipal Corporation, Mumbai 
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.    
            
    Citation: 2015(2)ABR730, 2015(4)ALLMR795, 2015(2)BomCR497, 2015(4)MhLj778
              Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 2nd March,2015

Print Page

Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of expert witness

PW 3-Dr. Gajinder Yadav who conducted the post
mortem made a statement in cross examination that there
was more probability of death being caused by accidental
fire as there was no smell of kerosene oil from the body of
the deceased and that the fire had started from the lower
parts of the body towards upper parts is equally without any
merit.
Such statement of an expert witness without being
based on any specialized knowledge cannot be accepted.

The opinion of expert witness on technical aspects has
relevance but the opinion has to be based upon specialized
knowledge and the data on which it is based has to be found
acceptable by the Court.
In Madan Gopal Kakkad
versus Naval Dubey.1, it was observed as under :
“34. A medical witness called in as an expert to
assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the
evidence given by the medical officer is really of
an advisory character given on the basis of the
symptoms found on examination. The expert
witness is expected to put before the Court all
materials inclusive of the data which induced him
to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court
on the technical aspect of the case by explaining
the terms of science so that the Court although,
not an expert may form its own judgment on those
materials after giving due regard to the expert’s
opinion because once the expert’s opinion is
accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical
officer but of the Court.
35. Nariman, J. in Queen v. Ahmed Ally.2, while
expressing his view on medical evidence has
observed as follows:
“The evidence of a medical man or other
skilled witnesses, however, eminent, as to
what he thinks may or may not have taken
place under particular combination of
circumstances, however, confidently, he may
speak, is ordinarily a matter of mere opinion.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1366 OF 2010
SULTAN SINGH

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
Citation; 2015(1) Crimes 59 SC

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of software expert?

In a recent copyright infringement case, the defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert claiming the software expert only examined 1% of the codes.  Judge Ellison explained that the defendants' argument of the plaintiff’s expert analyzed only 1% of the defendant’s code went to the weight of the report, not its admissibility. The Judge went on to say that this was not an instance where the expert based his opinions on facts that were of so little weight that his opinion should not have been admitted at all. While 1% of the defendant’s software code was not a large amount, the judge reasoned, another district court recognized that “[t]here does not appear to be any perfect way to compare millions of lines of source codes.” It allowed focusing on those parts where copying was likely.  Courts that strike experts for lack of factual basis typically involve an expert who cannot point to any data supporting his opinion.

Print Page

Amazing Tips for cross examination of witness

I was in the middle of trial and the other side’s expert witness took the stand. Under oath and while looking over at the Judge,he stretched the truth and in some cases, even made things up. He was being paid Rs.10,000/ for his testimony and had 10,000 reasons to say what he did.

In court, the persuasive power and overall effectiveness of a witness rest with how the judge perceives his character and credibility. If one or both of these qualities are lacking and, if you can point this out to a judge, then it really doesn’t matter what comes out of his mouth.

When it’s time to sound the alarm about someone’s lack of character or credibility, here are three ways to get the job done.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert valuer in land acquisition case?

Coming to the map Exh.34, which has been prepared by
PW2 Architect Arvind Trimbak Paradkar, since it bears his signature,
admittedly the area of the acquired house is 30.10 Sq. Mtrs.;
whereas the area stated in the said map Exh. 34 discloses the
measurement of the house as 42.90 Sq. Mtrs., and therefore, there is
variance in the area of the acquired house as stated in the award
and the said map Exh. 34. Moreover, the architect PW2 Arvind
Paradkar has no where stated in his deposition the date on which he
visited the acquired house and when and how he measured the said
house, as well as the manner of preparing the said map and the
method of preparation of area statement thereof, and the basis of
scale thereof is not mentioned in the said map and even the said
map discloses the stamp as Vastukala, Architect and Engineer,
Parbhani, and signed as PW2 Arvind Trimbak Paradkar as Architect,
but neither the said map Exh. 34 or deposition of PW2 Architect
Arvind Trimbak Paradkar discloses whether PW2 Arvind Paradkar is
proprietor or partner thereof, and all these shortcomings and lacunae
create suspicion about the said map Exh. 34, and further even the
area statement of the said map does not disclose the built up area
and open space of the said house.
18 Thus, it is amply clear from the testimony of PW2

Architect Arvind Paradkar, an expert witness, that he has not
narrated the contents of valuation report Exh. 33 and further the area
statement in the map Exh. 34 of the acquired house differ from the
area of the acquired house given in the award and even PW2 Arvind
Paradkar admitted that he has neither produced the documentary
evidence to show his expertise nor produced the District Scheduled
Rates and market value at the relevant time, and therefore, the said
expert evidence i.e. the testimony of PW2 Arvind Paradkar and
valuation report Exh. 33 as well as map Exh. 34 come under the
doldrums and do not take the appellant's case any further in
constructive manner to consider the same for enhancement in the
compensation as claimed by the appellant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1994
1 Masaji s/o Gyanoji Thoke,

V
 The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 07.3.2011
Citation: 2011(3)ALLMR161, 2011(3)BomCR633, 2011(113)BOMLR1070

Print Page

Expert Witnesses Should Never Say 7 things

Expert witnesses, if they are well prepared and know your case well, can go a long way to helping you win your case at trial. Often, a case will center on an engineering, scientific, environmental, or similar issue, and having the right expert can make all the difference.

However, the flip side is that a poorly prepared expert witness, or one who does not testify effectively, can help you lose your case.

Here are seven things that your expert witness should never say.

1. “That’s not my field of expertise, but …”The classic mistake an expert can make is to wander outside his or her area of knowledge and expertise. An expert should never sound evasive or ill-informed. If the answer to a question on cross-examination is truly outside his or her field, it’s not relevant to his or her direct testimony, or the question should draw an objection, the best way for an expert to be believed about what they doknow is to admit what they don’t know when it isn’t in their domain. If it’s relevant, the expert should be prepared and should answer.
    
2. “I have no idea.” Again, don’t sound evasive or ill-informed. A better answer is, “Under the assumptions that I am making, which are …, here is what I’d expect to happen.” In addition, the expert should explain why it is not relevant.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court should direct to take departmental action against investigating officer or experts witness who are guilty of dereliction of Duty in investigation and trial

We hold, declare and direct that it shall be appropriate exercise of jurisdiction as well as ensuring just and fair investigation and trial that courts return a specific finding in such cases, upon recording of reasons as to deliberate dereliction of duty, designedly defective investigation, intentional acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of the investigation by the investigating agency, expert witnesses and even the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Further, the Courts would be fully justified in directing the disciplinary authorities to take appropriate disciplinary or other action in accordance with law, whether such officer, expert or employee witness, is in service or has since retired.
Dereliction of duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily an abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54] stated that the ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context where the term occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.

Supreme Court of India

Dayal Singh & Ors. vs State Of Uttaranchal on 3 August, 2012

Author: S Kumar

Bench: Swatanter Kumar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla.

Citation:  (2012) 8 SCC 263,

Print Page