2016 (1) TMI 1441 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court emphasizes expert evidence scrutiny, rejects perjury allegations.

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant, finding his expert opinion consistent and ... Offence of perjury - firing of empty cartridges - presence of the firearm for examination - HELD THAT:- The appellant has all through been consistent that as an expert, a definite opinion in the case could be given only if the suspected firearm is available for examination. It is nobody’s case that scientifically an expert can give a definite opinion by only examining the cartridges as to whether they have been fired from the same firearm. It was the trial court which insisted for an opinion without the presence of the firearm, and in that context only, the appellant gave the non-specific and indefinite opinion. An expert, in such a situation, could not probably have given a different opinion. 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. 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. 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant.2. Allegation of perjury under Section 193 of IPC.3. Consistency of appellant's expert opinion.4. High Court's interpretation of expert evidence.5. Applicability of legal precedents and expert testimony standards.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC Against the Appellant:The appellant was aggrieved by the High Court of Delhi's proceedings initiated under Section 340 of CrPC, which led to an order directing the Registrar General to file a complaint against him. Section 340 of CrPC, under Chapter XXVI, allows the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and form an opinion on whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into an offence related to a proceeding in that court. The court may then make a complaint before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. The High Court invoked this jurisdiction suo motu in the Criminal Appeal, leading to the impugned order.2. Allegation of Perjury under Section 193 of IPC:The High Court opined that the appellant's oral evidence during the trial reflected a shift from his written expert opinion, which was seen as an attempt to help the accused, thus attracting Section 193 of IPC. Section 193 of IPC deals with intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, punishable by imprisonment and fine. The High Court believed the appellant's deposition was calculated to let the accused off the hook, as his testimony appeared to support the 'two weapon theory' contrary to his earlier written opinion.3. Consistency of Appellant's Expert Opinion:The appellant's written report dated 04.02.2000 stated that no definite opinion could be given on whether the two cartridge cases were fired from the same firearm without examining the suspected firearm. During the trial, upon the court's insistence, the appellant opined that the two cartridges appeared to have been fired from different firearms. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's stand was consistent, as he had always maintained that a definite opinion required the examination of the firearm. The court noted that the appellant's opinion given during the trial was non-specific and indefinite, provided under the court's insistence without the necessary material.4. High Court's Interpretation of Expert Evidence:The High Court formed an opinion that the appellant's deposition was false evidence intended to support the accused's defense. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's opinion was consistent with his written report and that he had clearly stated his inability to form a definite opinion without the firearm. The Supreme Court emphasized that an expert's duty is to furnish the court with their opinion and the reasons for it, along with all the materials. It is then for the court to determine the correctness of the opinion.5. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Expert Testimony Standards:The Supreme Court referred to several legal precedents to highlight the standards and treatment of expert testimony. In 'Pritish v. State of Maharashtra,' it was held that proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC could be initiated even without a preliminary inquiry if the court finds it expedient in the interest of justice. The court also cited 'State (Delhi) v. Pali Ram' and 'Ramesh Chandra Aggrawala v. Regency Hospitals' to explain the advisory nature of expert evidence and the necessity for experts to provide scientific criteria for the court's independent judgment. The court further referred to the Queen's Bench decision in 'National Justice Compania Naviera SA v. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The 'Ikarian Reefer')' to emphasize that experts may change their views if new data is available.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had not committed perjury, as his opinion was consistent and non-definitive due to the lack of the suspected firearm for examination. The proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant were quashed, and the appeals were allowed. The court highlighted that expert evidence requires careful scrutiny and that mere rejection of such evidence does not warrant proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC.