Being a part of the legal world, we often question whether the expert opinion and expert evidence is credible or not. Well, we also think that lawyers sometimes put pressure on expert witnesses through intrusive or maybe aggressive questioning in cross-examinations. So, such prior experiences may diminish expert witness confidence and, as a consequence, negatively affect their credibility. So, this article includes an introduction to the Indian Evidence Law and components, views of various people on the credibility of expert opinion, some cases as examples to understand the law as well as how Evidence Law is applicable around the world

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Background-

The concept of evidence originated firstly in the Ancient Hindu Period. It has been conveyed in the Hindu Dharma Shastras that “the purpose or main objective of any trial is the desire to find out the truth The Shastras command, that the parties coming to the court must be persuaded to admit the truth. Three kinds of evidences have been laid down by Vasistha which are, Likhitam Sakshino Bukhti Parmanam Trividham Smritham i.e. Lekhya (Document), Sakshi (Witnesses) and Bukhthi (Possession).

Coming to the Ancient Muslim Period, it has been said or assumed that there is no real concept regarding any highly developed Muslim rules of evidence. The Al – quran puts light on justice, as justice is regarded as an attribute of god. So, the rules of evidence are highly advance and modern. Evidence under Muslim law is divided was divided under the heads of oral and documentary. The oral evidence is further classified as direct and hearsay. Documentary evidences were also recognized in accordance with the Ancient Muslim law. However, Oral evidence was preferred to documentary. As, the documents executed by a certain class of people were not accepted by the court like those of women, children, drunkard, criminals etc. Besides, when documents were produced, courts insisted upon examining the party which produced them.[1]

In the British Period, the Evidence act was originally passed by the British Parliament in 1872. It contains a set of rules and regulation which governs the admissibility of any evidence in the courts of law.

In India, the Law of Evidence is a very important part of both civil as well as criminal. The enactment of this act is known as the path-breaking judicial measure introduced in India which changed the entire system of Indian judiciary.

This act, came into force on the first day of September, 1872. It was passed by the British Parliament and it contains a set of rules and regulation regarding admissibility of the evidences in the court of law. The provisions in it, talk about both procedure and rights, as it provides the procedure as to how to proceed to the court or how to establish our claim before the court. Evidence Act has been retained in its original form except certain amendments from time to time.[2]

Fact includes state of things, or relation of things, which are capable of being perceived by the senses. A fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. “Evidence” means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence.[3]

THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE LAW

Evidence is the only possible way by which the court can make inferences to make a decision. The evidence is the proof of any fact in issues so without evidence there will be no possibilities to prove any fact in issues or even to establish any facts in the cases. It is very obvious that it is not much difficult task to obtain trust through violating the basic structure of law but in the course of protecting those rights Evidence, Law comes into the picture. Evidence Law tells the basic principles and rules regarding collection. It helps us to achieve speedy and fair justice.

The law of evidence is not just a fundamental principle governing the process of proof rather it also has a multidimensional purpose of governing the rules relating to the process of proof in court proceedings. and fair justice. On the other hand, the evidence rules also have the

In the case of  Ratten V. Queen, the victim (wife) called the police for help as her husband was holding the gun and was about to kill her but before the operator could get connected to the call and report the statements of the victim, the call disconnected. Later the police found her dead body in her house from where she called the police for help. Later the police found that the time of the call and time of death was almost the same so the call by the victim comes under the principle of res gestae. Hence the court found the husband guilty of murder and quashed his reasoning that he shot accidentally without any intention.

In the case of Sukhar V. State of UP  the victim tried to alarm that the accused will shoot him in a few minutes. On hearing the alarm the witness almost reached the place of incident. However, the victim survived and the accused was charged under section 307 of IPC (Punishment for Attempt to Murder). Despite the circumstances, in this case, being hearsay evidence, but still, the court recognised the act in the same part of the transaction and explained it to be a case of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a result, the statements of the witnesses were admissible as it formed a part of the same transaction.

The Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act elaborates on the importance of motive, preparation, conduct (previous & subsequent) in various cases. And it is a well-known fact that Motive & Preparation are among the first act before any conduct. Therefore Section 8 explains the importance of motive, preparation and conduct where there are no direct evidence and the facts are proven on the basis of circumstantial.[4]

Although motive and intention are the thought of to be same,there is a thin line of difference between them that intention is the pre-calculation or knowledge of ascertained consequences in the mind of the offender. In some cases, it is observed that sometimes motive behind the execution of a crime may be good but the intention is always bad or guilt-oriented.

In, Kundula Bala Vs State of A.P The son-in-law before his marriage demanded a piece of land from the deceased. But after the marriage, the deceased refused to transfer the ownership of the property and expressed that he would give this property to his daughter. Such inferences of the father in law induced the accused in committing a crime and after some time the crime commenced. The court observed that there is a strong motive with the accused of committing the crime as the father in law refused to transfer the property in the accused name.[5]

Evidence tending to show that the accused had prepared for the crime is always admissible.. It is mostly observed that the Court draw inference with certain facts in establishing or ascertaining the preparation of crime committed.

In, Mohan Lal Vs Emperor, The accused was charged for cheating as he was importing goods in Karachi port from Okha port without paying the proper custom duty as he made some arrangements with the customs department. The prosecution showed enough evidence to prove the preparation by the accused in avoiding the import duties. The Court held that the act by the accused was completely wrongful and are prohibited by the law hence the accused is liable for preparation.

Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act also defines ‘conduct’, conduct here means an external behaviour of a person. To check if the conduct of a person is relevant to the incident then the court must establish a link between the conduct of a person who committed the crime and the conduct of incident. The most important role of this part is that the relevant conduct must bring the court to a conclusion of the dispute. If the Court came to a conclusion then the conduct was previous or subsequent, it shall be checked properly by the Court. It is very clear that conduct is one of the very important evidence explained under Section 8 and such importance is only considered when this conduct is in direct form, otherwise, if the conduct is recognised indirectly then it will lose its importance.[6]

In, Bhamara Vs State of M.P, a person X was farming on his land, on seeing another person standing near to his place he called the person for some conversation. After a few moments, the conversation turned into arguments and ended up into a fight. On seeing such activity other people came to the place of incident to stop the fight but subsequently, the offender tried escaping. But the offender was caught by some other person. The Court found that the conduct of escaping of the offender was relevant subsequent conduct.

In, Nagesha V. State of Bihar ,it was held by the Court if the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct.

Alibi- The word ‘Alibi’ is derived from the Latin word, which means ‘elsewhere’. Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Acts explains the concept of ‘Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant’ and makes the provision as a defending ground for the accused. .

In, Lakhan Singh @ Pappu vs The State of NCT of Delhi,A plea of alibi cannot be compared with a plea of self-defence although both the plea is to be taken on the very first instance of the court proceedings..

Confession- Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the word “confession” is an admission of crime by a criminal or suggesting the inferences that he committed a wrongful act, confession can be made at any time during the trial. In, Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court observed two aspects which are: Firstly, the definition of confession is that the accused must either admit the guilt or admit subsequently all or few facts which constitute the offence. On the other side, a mixed statement which also contains some confessional statement will still lead to an acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to a confession.

EXPERT ADVICE

Section 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the provision of admissibility of opinions of third persons, which is also known as ‘expert’s opinion’. Although it is a general rule that evidence can only be obtained on the basis of facts which are within the knowledge of a witness. The exception of ‘expert opinion’ is based on the principle that sometimes the court can’t conclude all the matters of the cases which are technically complicated and professionally sophisticated, as these cases are required to deal by such experts who have special knowledge and skills on those matters. The Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the meaning of ‘expert’ as a person who has special knowledge or skills or has a great experience either in foreign law or in science or in art or in handwriting or in finger impression; and such knowledge is gathered by him in the course of practising in the specific field or through observation or through proper studies in the specific field.[7]

When can an expert opinion be called?

The expert opinion can be called when there is:

1.     a) A dispute which can’t be resolved without expert opinion; and

2.     b) Such a situation that the witness expressing the opinion is a subject matter related to expert.

In, Arshad v. State of A.P.  and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P, in both the cases the court observed that expert evidence are just a mere opinion and not the substantive or a probative evidence; according to the procedural rule the opinion or the inference of the expert is not safe as they don’t have any independent value so they must be corroborated with the circumstantial evidence.

In, Piara Singh v. the State of Punjab, the Court state that whenever there is a contradiction between the opinion of two experts, then the court must refer only those opinions which are supported by the direct evidence of the fact of the cases.

A witness is a person who voluntarily provides evidence to clarify or to help the court in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in the case. Witnesses can either be the person related or experts with valuable input for the case. Pieces of Evidence are placed in the court on the basis of witness and even the genesis can be proved of the documents can be proved in the court. Therefore, the law has to be very precise with regards witness and has to check the credibility of the witness, there are some certain issues to the court before the admission of the witness’s statements such as- How many witnesses are needed to prove a fact? Who is competing to be a witness of the issues? How to check the witness credibility?

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down certain rules that ‘who may testify’ the rule expresses the provisions that all personnel shall be competent to testify by the court unless the witnesses are protected by some other provision that they cannot understand the question presented before them to testify any facts and such exceptions can be related to extreme old age, chronic disease, being legally unsound etc.

CONCLUSION

Credibility judgments can be a fundamental aspect of any case, civil or criminal, and are often the determining factors at trial.297 It is unforgivable that the legal system deliberately ignores demonstrated, relevant findings about demeanor evidence and willfully adheres to an ineffectual traditional approach. Advances in medical science and investigative techniques are integrated facilely into the insular legal system, and other advances in knowledge should be accepted, as well. When a conventional juridical policy is demonstrably unhelpful, despite all appeals to precedent or tradition, it should be reassessed in light of the data which disprove it. Social science has convincingly demonstrated the disutility of demeanor evidence as misapplied by the legal community, and its recommendations and solutions should be recognized by the legal system. Extensive revamping of judicial policy is not necessary. Rather, simple changes in evidentiary instructions and the ways in which certain constitutional rights are interpreted and applied can prevent the mistakes to which current legal assumptions about demeanor evidence easily lead. The results of these small changes can only enhance the truth-seeking process