OPINION OF THE THIRD PERSON UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

INTRODUCTION

Chapter II of the Indian Facts Act relates to the validity of the third person's view. It is often referred to as the view of the expert and is generally articulated in compliance with Section 45-51 of the Act. The rules set out in this section are unique under the standard rule of law of proof in which the testimony is only that which the claimant has supplied mostly on the grounds of his experience and conviction. This provision notes that perhaps the court could not draw its judgement on specific matters as well as on complex matters involving the unique experience of the individual who has gained expertise in the subject area.

EXPLANATION BY EXPERTS

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act contains clarification on the concept of an expert. An expert is indeed an individual with information or experience in some area, such as international law, research, literature, handwriting identification or finger language, and where he has obtained such information by practice, research, analysis. For, e.g., a medical doctor, technological experts, chemical and explosives experts, a ballistic specialist and a fingerprint specialist. Evidence on points is prosecutable if it is taken into full consideration by the court.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXPERT

The primary responsibility of the expert witness is to aid the court in proceedings that fall beyond the domain of its competence. They are not obligated to force the parties to pay the full amount they have approved. There is indeed a general belief that the customers who nominate the expertise make their expert turn towards themselves and therefore render their cases beneficial. A compromise on the autonomy of the expert could reverse the nomination.

WORTH OF EXPERT ADVICE

There have been two facets of expert testimony. Data evidence and Opinion evidence, usually data evidence, are acknowledged before the oral evidence differs. The second opinion proof is taken from the reports which do not take priority over the direct eyewitness testimonies because the discrepancy between the two was too severe that the oral information was falsified. In S. Gopal Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was challenging to consider the facts presented without even any objective corroboration. Expert evidence is proof of judgement and can not substitute credible evidence.

PROOF OF EXPERT WITNESS V PROOF OF GENERAL WITNESS

The expert witness shall only express an opinion on handwriting, fingerprinting, the essence of the accident medical examination, while the ordinary witness shall specify the details of the event. The essence of the expert witness shall be informative, while the witness shall state the evidence to the court. The view of the defendant is not enforceable in the court of law. Responsibility of ordinary witnesses is often taken into consideration rather than expert witnesses.

CONCLUSION

The expert witness is entirely distinct to that ordinary witness. The judgement of the expert should never be doubted in the courts. In the case of dispute about the expertise and experience of the expert, the judgement or study shall be called into question. The expert opinion is assessed from a particular point of view since it is not mindful of the facts of the case, and the court is not sure of the domain of experience to which the case relates.

Written By Abhishek Rai, Law Intern.