1

BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH

FACULTY OF LAW

TAKE-HOME ASSIGNMENT IN LIEU OF II PERIODICAL TEST 2020

B.A. LL.B. X Semester

SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

Submitted To: Ms. Rashmi Singh Rana

Associate Professor

Jamnalal Bajaj School of Legal Studies

Submitted By: Pragati Garg

B.A.LL.B.

B-BATCH

ROLL No. 1511057

Class Roll No. 57

 2

‘DULY SIGNED SELF-DECLARATION’

The work is my own work.

I have not previously submitted all or part of this work for assessment in any subject.
I may be subject to student discipline processes in the event of an act of academic
misconduct by me including an act of cheating.
Apart from accessing indiankanoon to study the case in detail, I have referred to
certain journals for depth study of the assigned case law.
The Journals referred by me are listed below:
1. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, A Study on the Admissibility
of expert evidence in Indian Evidence Act, by Sadhana.S, K.Roja.
2. Bharati Law Review, April – June, 2018, Expert Evidence by Ms. Shreya Jain and
Ms. Ujaala Jain.
3. J.T.R.I Journal, Medical Evidence And Its Use In Trial Of Cases by M.L. Slngha.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE No.

ABSTRACT 5
INTRODUCTION 6
FACTS IN BRIEF 7
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE 8-10
CONCLUSION 11
 4

TOPIC: ANALYZE THE JUDICIAL

APPROACH ON “INCONSISTENT AND
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS”
IN A CASE

ABSTRACT
 5

The law of evidence is very crucial branch of law on which justice rests. The main object of
evidence is to pave way for court to come to a conclusion regarding the present case. In
certain cases where evidence is beyond the knowledge and skill of court, it creates a problem
for court to come to any conclusion. In such situation court takes the help of expert evidence.
Expert is a person who has high knowledge and skill in particular field. And,expert evidence
is information or statement made by a person who is specialized in that particular field of
work or which he has given that information. Expert evidence is required to assist the court
when the case before it involves matters on which court does not have the requisite technical
or specialist knowledge. Expert evidence is corroborative and advisory in nature. It is not
binding in all the cases.
It wholly depends on the situational circumstances whether the expert evidence and opinion
given by expert witness is relevant or not and what is its evidentiary value. Expert witnesses
are appointed by court in only those cases where court lacks in knowledge about the case and
if court feels it necessary for the interest of justice. Expert evidence is given in both civil
cases as well as in criminal cases.

The present case tries to analyze the Judicial Approach on “inconsistent and conflicting
expert opinions” in a case.

INTRODUCTION
 6

While the test for admissibility of expert evidence differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
judges in all jurisdictions face the common responsibility of weighing expert evidence and
determining its probative value. This is no easy task. Expert opinions are admissible to
furnish courts with information which is likely to be outside their experience and knowledge.

In law, there may occur a case concerning issues related to science or any other faculties
other than law. In such a case judge’s knowledge or skill may not amount sufficient to give
any opinion of his own or judge any related evidence and give his judgment. An expert is
called in such cases who deliver his opinion, facts or evidence related to such field in which
he has extra-ordinary knowledge and skill. Sections 45 – 55 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
talk about expert, expert evidence and expert opinion. An expert witness is defined as a
person especially skilled in foreign law, science or art, etc. who helps the court in
forming opinion on that point1.
The disparities in the evidence of experts within the same discipline are notorious,
ineluctably favouring the party who has instructed them. As a result, judges sometimes
suggest that the courts should be prepared, where appropriate, to approach the
evidence of experts with “a healthy scepticism” or “with reserve and scepticism”.

The persons accepted by the court as experts may give guidance extending to opinions. These
experts form their opinions by evaluating the foundational facts. The justification for
receiving this type of opinion is that the expert adds something relevant to the materials upon
which the tribunal of fact received. The pre-condition for admitting this type of testimony is
that without it the judge is not competent to determine the issue.

CASE: SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR …APPELLANT

VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR …RESPONDENT
1
Section 45,Indian Evidence Act 1872
 7

CITATIONS: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3780/2018)

FACTS IN BRIEF:
The accused was brother of the respondent’s husband. That the appellant herein – original
accused was tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections
376(1) and 450 of the IPC. A written complaint was filed by the prosecutrix on 16.09.2011
before the local police station against the accused alleging, that in the preceding night at
about 11:00 p.m. the accused – brother of her husband, committed the rape upon her.
According to the prosecution, thereafter the accused ran away and after getting an
opportunity she raised alarm and the neighbours came there including one Suman Devi, her
cousin Gotini as well as Shanti Devi, her cousin mother-in-law. She disclosed the
event/incident to them. At the time of incident, her husband was away from the village.
Thereafter on their arrival she came to the police station along with them and submitted
written report. Along with 8 witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record the FIR, Injury
Report and FSL Report. The case of the accused was of total denial.

The High Court dismissed the said appeal filed by the accused against the order of the
Session Court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The
medical opinion of the doctor was considered in the instant case, as she categorically stated
that there is no physical or pathological evidence of rape. Also, there were material
contradictions in the disposition of the prosecution, therefore the Judgment of the High Court
was quashed and the accused was set free.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIAL APPROACH

The question of what strategies judges uses to resolve such conflicts and, more generally, to
review expert evidence is critical. The judicial pronouncement in the case made by the apex
 8

court in case of Gotharn Construction Co. v. Amulya Krishna2 is that the "court is an expert
of all experts and need no opinion evidence of an expert, if the subject matter is within
the common knowledge of judges".
As far as medical experts are concerned the Courts in India have different opinions. In certain
cases they have accepted the evidence. Regarding injuries the evidence of the experts is
accepted depending on the other circumstances. In Alamgir v. State3, without referring to
Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court stressed that the Court must exercise due care
and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RULING OF HIGH COURT ON BASIS ON

INCONCLUSIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, UNRELIABLE ORAL TESTIMONY IS
JUSTIFIED?

Though, there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a
medical expert. The High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence. But, in the instant case,
the Supreme court has considered other independent evidence alongwith the medical reports
of the prosecutrix. The Court has exercised due care and caution while determining the
creditworthiness of expert evidence.
 INCONCLUSIVE MEDICAL REPORTS:
In the instant case, the petticoat of the prosecutrix was sent to FSL (Forensic Science
Laboratory) and the petticoat was having the blood as well as semen stains. But, the
FSL report was inconclusive. Though the respondent contended that just because a
medical report is inconclusive, doesn’t mean that the accused should be set free. To
this, the court did not only rely on medical report but observed other evidences also.

 INCONSISTENT MEDICAL OPINION:

Moreover, even the lady doctor, PW7 has also opined that possibility of rape cannot
be ruled out. However, in the cross-examination, she has stated that there was no
physical or pathological evidence of rape. This clearly shows the inconsistency of the
expert opinion. At first, she said that there are possibilities that the victim might have
been raped but during the cross-examination she stated that there was no evidence of
rape.
2
AIR 1968 Cal. 91
3
(2003) 1 SCC 21
 9

 UNRELIABLE ORAL TESTIMONY:

Also, no injuries were found on the body of the victim. Though, the prosecution
contended that merely because during the medical examination doctor did not find
any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix, her statement cannot be
discarded but Court didn’t rely on their submission.

The court in its analysis has clearly stated that there can be a conviction solely based on the
evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy.
Therefore, it examined the evidence of the prosecutrix and considered that whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the
deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence
supports nor other witnesses support the claims of the prosecution.

The court in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is
observed and held by this Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for
commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient
provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and should be of sterling quality.

 MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS:
But, if we go through and consider the deposition of the prosecutrix, we will find that
there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but
even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the
prosecutrix is not believable. The medical report does not support the case of the
prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. If the
evidence of the witness for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical
evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless
reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case4.

4
Ram Narain v. State of Punjab. AIR 1975 SC 1727
 10

Therefore, the appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are hereby
quashed and set aside.
The Supreme Court has justified its reasoning in the impugned judgment. When there
are material contradictions and unreliable oral and medical evidence, then it will be
unfair to uphold the conviction of the accused.

CONCLUSION
This case analysis has shown that there is a discrepancy between the actual practices of the
courts in resolving expert-related evidentiary dilemmas. The findings highlighted the ways in
 11

which courts make use of various heuristics that are not necessarily aligned with the
objectives of Penal laws.
The expert has more skill in his field and has years of practice and experience to his credit
which sets him apart from any witness’s testimony. It is a corroborative evidence which
means that such evidence needs a primary evidence and it cannot survive alone. In cases
where expert opinion is considered, there should be a primary evidence and the expert
testimony can support it.
Clearly this area deserves more study, which should combine both experimentation with
various institutional mechanisms and the development of new forms of unbiased approach.