Supreme Court of India
Prem Sagar Manocha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 6 January, 2016
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
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 … APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) … RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
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. The appeals are allowed.
.…….…..…………CJI.
(T. S. THAKUR)
….……………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
January 6, 2016.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v/s Regency Hospital Ltd. has broadly dealt and interpreted the scenario and held that, an expert is a person who devotes his time and study to a special branch of learning. However, he might have acquired such knowledge by practice, observation or careful study. The expert is not acting as a judge or jury. It was further held that 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. The real function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. An expert is not a witness of fact (like other witnesses) and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of the 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 these criteria. No expert can claim that he could be absolutely sure that his opinion was correct