One of the main categories of witnesses in Indian law is a person who is an eyewitness to a fact like a crime or an accident. Indian Evidence Act of 1872 of which Sections 118-134 are relevant, establishes the procedure for admissibility of the witnesses, their testimony and the acceptable comments in court. Most of the time, a witness summoned for court proceedings is obliged to give factual statements rather than express his/her opinions.[1] The court must make a judgment on the basis of the proofs presented by each party.
As for the observance of the expert witness rule, there is one situation which should be borne in mind, that the cases where no expert has a direct connection to the case are still counted as witnesses. These professionals are expected to advise the court on the matter by offering their professional opinions and views which can help the court take an impartial perspective on the matter. This is in line with the principle that it is impracticable for a judge to be an authority in every specialized field.[2] Thereby, such an expert witness, a person with specific skills or competency in that subject, has to be heard in the court when the judges need an opinion on some matters that require special knowledge.
The opinion of an expert witness is treated as important a fact, as per section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. This shows that the court is ready to give weight to the expert’s judgments and can rely on them in making decisions. The court has the unique advantage of acquiring insights that they can trust, as well as information from people with expert knowledge in a certain area if it allows the expression of opinions by witness experts.
The duties of an expert witness within civil actions are distinct but always confusing as well.[3] There are two main differences between regular witness testimony and expert evidence:
- In the beginning, unlike regular witnesses who have no options other than giving factual information, expert witnesses are allowed to make their conclusions on the analysed facts. They provide logical and important insights and conclusions that create justification for the facts and in turn, lead the deliberator to the right facts-based decision. Expert witness testimony is such an exception, that is otherwise accepted to be common, that no witness should give opinions. Expert witnesses are allowed to offer expert opinions on topics within their field of competence due to their knowledge and experience, but lay witnesses are only allowed to relate their observations or experiences.[4] This is due to the fact that their viewpoints are elevated above what the average individual would know due to their specific knowledge and expertise.
- Expert witnesses are paid by the parties engaged in the dispute for their testimony, which is another way that they are different from ordinary witnesses. This part of the compensation package has come under investigation and criticism. Because payment agreements may have an impact on the expert witness’s neutrality and credibility, the courts are reluctant to accept expert testimony. The worry is that their testimony’s integrity and quality may be compromised by prejudice or ulterior motivation brought about by the cash they received. In addition, the courts value the information that these witnesses provide, realizing that it is very difficult for judges to have the same degree of skill in some specialized subjects given the recent rapid advancement of scientific knowledge.[5] As a result, in order to have a thorough grasp of intricate scientific, technical, or specialized matters that could be critical to the case at hand, the judge invariably depends on the expert witness. However, the court may get uneasy due to the necessity of depending on expert testimony. The expert’s judgments are now subject to a great deal of faith on the part of the judge, who is used to assessing common evidence founded on their own conventional knowledge and experience. Because the witness stand takes on more responsibility for understanding and assessing the facts than the judge or jury does, this involuntary reliance on expert knowledge may be one reason why courts are hesitant to accept expert testimony.
Prerequisites of expert witness
Prior to the admission of a witness’s opinion as evidence in court, two crucial requirements must be fulfilled in relation to expert testimony:
1. The first prerequisite is the kind of cases where the court must have an expert testimony because it’s too complex for the judges can handle alone. This suggests that the topic of discussion should be either complex or specialized, and someone needs to be trained as an expert to understand the whole topic.[6] For example, difficult technical parts like in the scientific experiment would have to be determined by an expert witness instead of the common person because the skills of the common person are not sufficient to deal with such specifics.
2. The next thing to note is that the witness’s credibility should be established as an authority on the subject she or he is testifying about. Hence, the testimony of the expert witness should have the foundation in the specific person’s background, training, and discipline in that field of knowledge. The defence must be able to show that the experts testifying are sufficiently competent to do so. The court will exclude the witness’s testimony if the witness is not a real specialist.
An expert witness’s degree of experience and knowledge must be cross-examined and questioned in court, to provide proof of their mastery of the relevant field, expertise and expertise.[7] The witness should presently prove to the court that they are competent, experienced and have already a solid factual basis for their testimony if they are to be allowed the privilege of giving their opinion.
Impartial nature of expert witness
The witness, not independent of the expert witness such as favouritism, is often unduly considered by the system of law. Sometimes courts may admit it as primary evidence and other times they may completely leave it out. This shows a lack of cooperation, which among other things leads to a question of the reliability of the evidence.
The construction of a sound theory concerning the expert witness’s obligation of independence and impartiality is what will figure prominently in the process of addressing this complication.[8] The line between independence and impartiality should be carefully drawn as though they are somewhat similar concepts, there is a distinguishing point to them. The courts often muddy these terms, but it’s critical to understand how they differ.
The key factor of fairness according to the direction of thinking or the attitude toward the topics and persons considered, is the main factor. Touching upon the idea of an expert’s ability to stay impartial and neutral in his appraisal and testimony, it is an object to one’s perception. Conversely, independence is rather a personal record, it can be regarded as “objective” phenomenon. It hints at the person who is untouched by any of the forces that can corrupt their objectivity towards the case.
It could be helpful to ponder whether the problem is caused by the expert’s conclusions or by the evidence that they provide in order to decide whether the issue is about disrespecting independence or objectivity. In fact, partiality comes apparent if the anxiety is based on evidence.[9] Therefore, the witness could be biased. However, if the given case is about the mediator itself, it shows lack of objectivity and raises questions regarding the relationships of an expert with other people, for example, his private or professional designs, that may compromise her neutrality.
In simple words, impartiality is the expert’s way of acting and thinking, emphasizing their capacity to maintain objectivity and neutrality. But independence has to do with how the expert is related to other people and whether or not they are subject to any outside pressures that can taint their impartiality. Understanding the difference between independence and impartiality can help the court handle difficulties with tainted expert testimony and make decisions that are relevant to the particular circumstances at hand.
Limitations of expert witness
There is a specific meaning attached to the term “expert” when referring to a witness in a court of law. According to Section 45 of the Evidence Act, a witness is not permitted to provide their opinions unless they satisfy the requirements to be regarded as an expert. But the clause doesn’t outline any specific requirements for education, training, or work history that would make someone an expert. Rather, if a witness possesses exceptional knowledge, expertise, or proficiency in a particular field, trade, or occupation, they are typically regarded as experts. In order for a witness to be regarded as an expert, they must have looked into the matter in great detail and have a degree of expertise that is not widely known.
Stated differently, they need to possess adequate knowledge and expertise in their area of expertise to be deemed peritus, or skilful, and capable of offering a perspective that will aid the court in comprehending the subject under discussion.[10] Finally, the court will evaluate the fitness of a witness by looking into the witness’s background, credentials and ability to provide relevant information. An expert witness must have qualifications recognized in the science, art or profession of which they will produce the evidence testimony before they testify as the expert. It is, therefore, essential to assess a case and determine if the witness is well suited to provide an opinion (based on his/her experience or knowledge) that will indeed be of help to the court.
In the US, a referee of the court has the power to ascertain whether a called witness who is an expert has the required certificates to give expert testimony. The expert witness’s credibility could be tested by the court itself through the method of cross-examination of the other witnesses. Through the course of this, only qualified witness may be allowed to present their testimony into a court of law.
However, Indian judiciary differs from U.S judiciary in certain aspects. The successful establishment of the witness’s efficiency as an expert not only throughout the examination-in-chief, but also a part of the emphasizing the witness’s expertise, knowledge and competence leads to the acceptance of his/her opinion.[11] It is possible that the credibility of a witness is compromised or their testimony is not taken into consideration, if later on after cross-examination it is revealed that they lack the adequate knowledge and experience.
In general terminology, the court in the US examines the qualifications of experts very carefully, and the plausibility of their evidence is judged based on the expert’s proven subject matter expertise. In the Indian law, an expert’s testimony is allowed as far as they can demonstrate competence first during the examination-in-chief. However, if their credibility is questioned during cross-examination, it might undermine or invalidate their testimony.
Expert witnesses are important in court cases because they may help the judge make an equitable and well-informed judgment by sharing their expertise and knowledge on the issue at hand. Expert witness credibility is determined by taking into account a number of elements.
- The first consideration is the witness’s ability to gather reliable information. For example, a diagnosis made by a medical expert based only on written reports or hearsay would not be as trustworthy as one made after the expert had seen the patient in person and gone over their medical records. In situations where the expert is discussing scientific or technical matters, their credentials and background in that area would also be important considerations for judging their reliability.
- Conflicts related to interest or possible biases make up the second component. Credibility may be impacted by experts who have financial or other incentives to hold particular views or ignore specific facts. Furthermore, experts that are personally connected to one of the parties involved in the case could not be as neutral.
- Lastly, the statement should confirm with the information presented so far. A distinction between the expert opinion and the facts of common sense may be questioned if the expert witness’s personal judgment contradicts their judgment.
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act sets forth that the expert can testify on those subjects on which the witness can give honest evidence in the Indian Court. This concerns any major like accounting, engineering or medicine, which is difficult to learn, and requires expert knowledge.
However, it is hard to find the particular field of knowledge necessarily involving the expert witness during litigation, especially when two or more scientific fields are involved. A witness who is professional in this area may be asked to provide the information that he or she bases that opinion on, if any.[12] The reality is that their judgments, rather than the facts that they noted down are treated as expert evidence.
Experts that testify constitute the backbone of an investigation and without the input of these professionals, the outcome of a case is less likely to be positive.
- Filling in the Gaps: The expert evidence testimony is crucial that could possibly fill the gaps in the evidential knowledge and experience. They can really help make links and give the whole, overall picture of important issues. Such approach leads to the opportunity to include those data gaps or research uncertainties.
- Reinforcing Weak Links: The evidence may contain weak chains. In addition to ruling out these weak positions, expert witnesses are in a position to reinforce the side of the case by providing the required knowledge. Their very specific abilities and knowledge can reinforce the evidence.
- Examining Correctness: The experts may play a critical role in not only confirming but also in arguing or disproving the confessions given by suspects or witnesses. They can consult the resources to make sure given details are accurate and reliable, and they can analyse the evidence according to their knowledge and skills. This is probably the most important factor when conflicting reports co-exist or there are some issues of inconsistency.
- Clarifying Uncertain Points: In the first stages of an inquiry, there may be some areas that are not fully understood or require additional elaboration. Through the provision of their research-based conclusions and clarifications, expert witnesses can be helpful in the process of dismantling those impressions. This might help investigators not only kind the pile of facts but also better focus on the core elements of the case.
- Helping with Regular Inquiries: Also, experts may be of help to cope with the usual questions. By dint of their skill, they can ascertain the evidence very quickly that may be an indicator in particular cases. This can help investigators with the investigation conclude more expeditiously because they will have time and material costs saved.
Expert testimony is usually provided verbally in court during legal processes. There are, however, some exceptions, such as documents from chemical examiners or certificates from imperial serologists about the kind of bloodstains, which can be accepted as proof without the necessity for spoken testimony.
The judicial system and the validity of expert evidence may be significantly impacted by the two essential characteristics of expert witnesses ie. the fact that they cannot be forced to testify in a trial and the amount of money they are paid:
- It is because of the fact that there is no legal necessity for expert witnesses to testify that they testify voluntarily. The consequence of this is the limited diversity of viewpoints and ideas held by the specialists, who end up displacing other factors, thus encumbering the area of study. For its part, it may generate some concerns about the subjectivity of expert witness testimony.
- Sometimes the subject matter specialists hesitate to testify for a specific party or feel inclined to support the party that has paid them. Payment of the experts as well as possibility of biased testimony can become a point of criticism too. Fiscal incentives might convince an expert to change or even slant the evidence if they are paid for their testimony. Another instance is that an expert may consider what party pays him/her however much partial the judgment is supported by facts or evidence.[13] Furthermore, the fact that the possibility of having a contracted professional witness means that the testimony could be in favour of the party. Some experts might put their wish to make a profit before providing accurate, impartial advice. This situation put the experts in a situation where he/she is not that eager to present unbiased evidences but more into making the legal firms or parties pay their fee amount. For instance, even if an expert has little understanding of other subjects, they might be more inclined to testify in favour of their own area of competence. As a result, experts may offer comments on topics outside of their purview, which might result in testimony that is untrustworthy or misleading.
Court’s insight to expert witness
Piara Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court underlined in the Piara Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab[14] decision that an expert witness’ testimony is intended to support direct evidence in a case. The court went on to say that where there are divergent expert opinions and its disputed to one another, the court should follow the expert’s judgment that is consistent with solid direct evidence.
In this case, Piara Singh and others were found guilty of Surjit Singh’s murder. The medical evidence, the recovery evidence, the ballistic expert’s evidence, and the testimony of P.W. Balbir Singh, who testified about the accused Piara Singh’s extrajudicial confession, all entirely supported the court’s finding that the eyewitness testimony was credible.
The court further stated that while the testimony of biased or interested parties should be carefully considered, it cannot be disregarded out of pure mistrust. The court ruled that there is no restriction on the court using the evidence if it is deemed credible. In Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, the court noted that a medical witness’s opinion is not necessarily conclusive and enforceable and that, in the right circumstances, the court may reach its own judgment based on the details of the injuries and other pertinent information.
The court further stated that in cases in which two medical witnesses with equal capacity to form opinions disagree with one another’s opinions, the court will often accept the testimony of the witness whose testimony is supported by direct evidence.
Sally Challen v. State of Punjab
The testimony of the expert witness proved important in lowering a murder conviction to manslaughter in the Sally Challen v. State of Punjab[15] case. The evidence was not presented at the first trial; however, throughout the process of appeal, the expert’s observation of the individual’s mental state at the exact point of crime has become a significant element to the case. A psychiatrist was used to testify in the case, he offered insights on Sally Challen’s mind during the murder instance.
It is worth noting that it was put forward only at the second trial, but the expert testimony proved to be a key element in our efforts to create a reasonable doubt as to a murder accusation. The psychiatric examination proved to be essential since the nature of the mental condition in which Challen was at the time of the crime, influenced the proof of the disorder that could have potentially altered the criminal process itself, or the verdict of the court.
The expert opinion gave a clear meaning of how the fact that mental health issues affect how a case turns out and is going, is clearly shown. The court showed the importance of the testimony by a psychiatrist in the case the psychiatrist`s opinion being decisive and the accusation of murder was reduced to manslaughter because of diminished responsibility.
John Worboys v. State of Punjab
The testimony of an expert witness provided very strong evidence which led to the conviction of accused in John Worboys v. State of Punjab[16] criminal case. The testimony of the expert helped to prove the existence of a mental disease.
Unlicensed taxi driver John Worboys was convicted of Imperial Offence Act of 33, including drugging and raping 23 different women in a period ranging from July 2007 to February 2008. The testimony rendered by the experts during this trial was of outstanding significance because it directly majorly exhibited the mental condition of the defendant that his intent for the commitments of the offenses he was charged with.
At that time, the psychiatrist who was associated with the case had devoted some part of his profession to studying someone’s psychological state when they committed that certain crime. Besides, it ought to have been made clear to the trial court the medical evidence connected to the mental health problems that affected his emotional aspect.
Because the main objective of the court in this regard was to get the opinion of the psychiatrist that whether or not he was in the mental state at the time of the crimes, it was a case of extreme importance that the expert’s answer was one way or the other. The judge laid emphasis on this information while he was deciding whether the accused person was capable of committing the acts that he was accused of or not therefore.
Sally Clark v. State of Punjab
The main role of the leading expert witness in Sally Clark v. State of Punjab [17] case was providing evidence which resulted in the defendant being sentenced to the crime of murder of her two small children. The case ended up successful for the plaintiff because it was later revealed that the expert’s opinion regarding the risk of the baby dying of SIDS had been unexpected.
Lost at Chester Crown Court, lawyer Sally Clark was convicted of the two little kid murders of her. The children were said to have died from SIDS, however, the defence argument asserted that the case was due to coincidence, albeit one with odds of 1 in 73 million that two infants in a wealthy family would have ever suffered the same affliction. In the first trial, the expert’s judgment was essential since it established the case’s possibility of SIDS.
But questions were raised concerning the statistical foundation of Professor Meadow’s testimony, which was the reason Sally Clark received a life sentence. Because of the seriousness and nature of the crime, the case received a lot of media attention during the first trial and was viewed as a contentious ruling. Eventually, the high court ordered a re-examination of the matter, and in a General Medical Council hearing, Professor Meadow’s testimony was questioned.
Ernest Saunders v. State of Punjab
Expert testimony was crucial to the trial in Ernest Saunders v. State of Punjab, but it turned out that the defendant had made up the illness. Back in 1986, Saunders, a businessman, was charged with conspiracy, fraudulent accounting, share dealing-related greed, and larceny. According to Sect. 434(5) of The Companies Act (1985) inspectors from DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) had the right to receive information about the TSM and answers to the questions from the accused were guaranteed for criminal investigation purposes.
In this case, the court relied strongly on the expert evidence to prove the case and ultimately convicted the defendant. The expert witness’s evidence was part of evidence that created the perception that Saunders’s mental disorders influenced the court’s decision to rule on his competence and mental capability.
However later it was proved that actual illness was not there and it was forced, yet this event raised doubts amongst everyone whether the doctor’s testimony in the court can be believed. Having that in mind the case is a very striking demonstration of the professionalism of the expert testimony in criminal courts trials and that professionalism helps the court to evaluate the sanity of the defendant.
Besides that, it demonstrates, how the expert opinion may be prejudiced or deformed by which may lead to an injustice. Although the case was very much controversial, section 434 of the Companies Act 1985 was amended by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which highlight that evidence that has been extracted by coercion cannot be used.
Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones
The court further disclosed the position of expert testimony and the importance of independent corroboration when the matter of Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones[18] came up. The court stressed that testifying is not just about giving a professional opinion, instead the judge has to consider all of the important information to assess whether the expert’s standpoint is reliable enough.
The court goes on emphasizing that while it will be the one to form a conclusion based on all the information available and that it will not be limited by the opinion of an expert. According the civil surgeon in this case the appellant was a feckless imbecile with the mental age of 6 years old. This court found, to this end. However, food didn’t testify neither the doctor didn’t confide other evidence so the court doesn’t accept this opinion.
It also pointed at the distinction between the circumstances of total lack of intelligence and idiocy, where the expert’s opinion was just one aspect of the evidence that the court could apply to decide whether to believe that piece of evidence.
Conclusion
So, expert witnesses in the Indian legislative system, given the Evidence Act of 1872, is essential in providing specialized insights. They have to handle complex problems, closing cultural gaps and providing investigative departments with intelligence. Nevertheless, the main condition of involving expert testimonies is the impartiality and credibility. Even though they are profound, problems do exist, including what constitutes expertise, what are the potential biases, and so on. As we deal with the legal environment, it is of great importance to have knowledgeable experts but ensure objectivity as well. The secret power of expert witnesses is still in their hands while they are carrying out their mission of finding justice in the sometimes, tricky system of law.
In conclusion, the article provides a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the critical role that expert witnesses play within the Indian legal system, particularly in the context of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The article emphasizes that expert witnesses are considered of paramount importance in the Indian judicial framework, as their specialized knowledge and professional opinions can be utilized even without direct involvement in a case.
A key focus of the article is the specific prerequisites for admitting expert testimony in Indian courts. It highlights the importance of the expert witness’s credibility, expertise, and impartiality as crucial factors that must be established. The article delves into the distinction between impartiality and independence, noting that while both are important considerations, they are distinct concepts that the courts must carefully evaluate. The research additionally focuses on the evaluation strategies of the Indian judicial system in scrutinizing the qualifications and reliability of expert witnesses.
Another fundamental issue argued out within this issue is how expert witnesses have great effect and multidimensional influence in the court process. Since the article argues that they provide missing links in investigations and fill in information gaps, corroborate confessions’ authenticity, and address tough technical and scientific questions, the article deals with weakening of the evidence, missing evidence confirmation, close gaps in knowledge, and the offer solutions to complex technical and scientific issues. Their expertise which is the most specific one in those cases is as well very important in allowing the court to make considered and equal judgements, especially on the matters whose depth does not exceedS the discreet knowledge and the experience of the judges.
On the one hand, the article clearly says that expert witnesses are always credible and objective, and they have nothing to gain from the outcomes of any investigation. On the other hand, the article does not neglect the fact that the credibility of these witnesses can be questionable, especially when some of them have the bias regarding the case at hand due to the payment they get as remuneration. These issues, among others, receive deeper analysis because they can result in many honesty issues while the expert’s opinion may be turned into a sale-able commodity. It shows the number of court hearings where expert analyses were presented standing as the representative of its great significance and influence, as well as chances of failing to be recognized. The article defines the court’s careful position in making sure that the credibility and impartiality of the testimony is not undermined, and at the same time the importance of expert witnesses is recognized and fully utilised.
To summarize, this article details the functions, requirements and the problems associated with the admissibility of expert witness evidence under the Indian Evidence Act providing ripe discussions regarding this highly sought after aspect of the Indian legal system.
References
- Anand I, ‘Admissibility of Expert Opinion in the Court of Law’ (2023) 3
- ‘“Black-Cab Rapist” John Worboys to Be Freed from Jail – BBC News’ <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42571219> accessed 9 March 2024
- Dahlman C, Stein A and Tuzet G, Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford University Press 2021)
- ‘Eyewitness Evidence Carries Greater Weight than Medical Expert’s View in Deciding Culpability: Supreme Court | India News – Times of India’ <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/eyewitness-evidence-carries-greater-weight-than-medical-experts-view-in-deciding-culpability-supreme-court/articleshow/103822920.cms> accessed 8 March 2024
- Gormley DC, ‘The Role of the Expert Witness’ (1955) 2 Ethnohistory 326
- Gross SR, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1991) 1991 Wisconsin Law Review 1113
- Hammelmann HA, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 10 The Modern Law Review 32
- Imwinkelried EJ, ‘Rationalization and Limitation: The Use of Learned Treatises to Impeach Opposing Expert Witnesses Developments in Criminal and Evidence Law’ (2011) 36 Vermont Law Review 63
- Krishna Kumari A, ‘Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion Under Indian Evidence Act’ (10 January 2007) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=956231> accessed 8 March 2024
- McCoid AH, ‘Opinion Evidence and Expert Witnesses’ (1954) 2 UCLA Law Review 356
- Meyer BS, ‘Some Problems Concerning Expert Witnesses’ (1967) 42 St. John’s Law Review 317
- Michell P and Mandhane R, ‘The Uncertain Duty of the Expert Witness Special Issue – Civil Justice and Civil Justice Reform’ (2004) 42 Alberta Law Review 635
- Murphy JP, ‘Expert Witnesses at Trial: Where Are the Ethics Note’ (2000) 14 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 217
- Rossi FF, Fox EM and Halverson JT, Expert Witnesses (American Bar Association 1991)
- Sangaonkar R, ‘Role of Witnesses in Criminal Trials in India’ (2022) 5 Issue 3 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 1281
- ‘The Case of Sally Clark – PMC’ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539414/> accessed 9 March 2024
- ‘The Sally Challen Case: Landmark Ruling or More of the Same? – News – University of Liverpool’ <https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/03/05/the-sally-challen-case-landmark-ruling-or-more-of-the-same/> accessed 9 March 2024
- Zafer MR, ‘Scientific Evidence-Expert Witnesses’ [1972] Journal of the Indian Law Institute 53
[1] Areti Krishna Kumari, “Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion Under Indian Evidence Act” SSRN (2007).
[2] Edward J Imwinkelried, “Rationalization and Limitation: The Use of Learned Treatises to Impeach Opposing Expert Witnesses Developments in Criminal and Evidence Law” 36 VLR 63 (2011).
[3] Paul Michell and Renu Mandhane, ‘The Uncertain Duty of the Expert Witness Special Issue – Civil Justice and Civil Justice Reform’ (2004) 42 Alberta Law Review 635.
[4] HA Hammelmann, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 10 The Modern Law Review 32.
[5] Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein and Giovanni Tuzet, Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford University Press 2021).
[6] Justin P Murphy, ‘Expert Witnesses at Trial: Where Are the Ethics Note’ (2000) 14 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 217.
[7] Isha Anand, ‘Admissibility of Expert Opinion in the Court of Law’ (2023) 3.
[8] India News – Times of India, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/eyewitness-evidence-carries-greater-weight-than-medical-experts-view-in-deciding-culpability-supreme-court/articleshow/103822920.cms (accessed 8 March 2024).
[9] Allan H McCoid, “Opinion Evidence and Expert Witnesses” 2 UCLALR 356 (1954).
[10] Bernard S Meyer, “Some Problems Concerning Expert Witnesses” 42 St. JLR 317 (1967).
[11] Faust F Rossi, Eleanor M Fox and James T Halverson, “Expert Witnesses” ABA (1991).
[12] MR Zafer, “Scientific Evidence-Expert Witnesses” JILI 53 (1972).
[13] Samuel R Gross, “Expert Evidence” 1991 WLR 1113 (1991).
[14] Piara Singh v State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 452].
[15] ‘The Sally Challen Case: Landmark Ruling or More of the Same? – News – University of Liverpool’ available at: https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/03/05/the-sally-challen-case-landmark-ruling-or-more-of-the-same/ {accessed 9 March 2024).
[16] ‘“Black-Cab Rapist” John Worboys to Be Freed from Jail – BBC News’ <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42571219> accessed 9 March 2024.
[17] ‘The Case of Sally Clark – PMC’ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539414/> accessed 9 March 2024.
[18] Titli v Alfred Robert Jones [(1933) SCC Online All 310].
Author: Sulipta Surabhi, a 3rd Year BA LLB student at National Law University, Odisha
