NDLI: Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure Offences Against Public ·Justice Expert evidence 1973
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.340 - Applicability of - Expert evidence - Jn the Jessica Lal Murder case, police sought an expert opinion from the State Forensic Science Laboratory as to whether both the empty cartridges were fired from the same firearm or otherwise - Appellant working as the Deputy Director of the Laboratory gave a report to the effect that the caliber of two cartridge cases was .22 and that no definite opinion could be given in order to link firearm unless the suspected firearm was made available for examination - In the said case, trial court acquitted the accused of all charges - High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused which order was affirmed by Supreme Court - Disturbed by the conduct of the witnesses turning hostile, High Court initiated suo motu proceedings against 32 witnesses including appellant - High Court proceeded against appellant holding that there was shift of stand by appellant from that of the written opinion and hence s. 193 !PC was attracted - Challenge against - Held: 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 was 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 - 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 - Moreover, mere H rejection of the expert evidence by itself may not also warrant initiation of proceedings u/s.340 - Proceedings u/s.340 liable to be quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.193, 195. s.340 - amended provision vis-a-vis provision prior to amendment - Scope of - Held: s.340 prior to amendment in 1973 was s.479-A in the 1898 Code and it was mandatory under the pre amended provision to record a finding after the preliminary inquiry regarding the commission of offence; whereas in the 1973 Code, the expression 'shall' is substituted by 'may' meaning thereby that under 1973 Code, it is not mandatory that the court should record a finding - What is now required is only recording the finding of the preliminary inquiry which is meant only to form an opinion of the court, and that too, opinion on an offence 'which appears to have been committed', as to whether the same should be duly inquired into - Code of Criminal Procedure, I 898 - s.479-A. Evidence: Expert evidence - Duty of expert - Held: 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.. Expert vis-a-vis Witness of facts - Testimony of, evidentiary value - Held: Expert gives an opinion on what he has tested or on what has been subjected to any process of scrutiny - The inference drawn thereafter is still an opinion based on his knowledge - 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
Neutral Citation	2016 INSC 19
Petitioner	Prem Sagar Manocha
Respondent	State (nct Of Delhi)
SCR	[2016] 1 S.C.R. 34
Judgement Date	2016-01-06
Case Number	9-10

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Please Log-in to view this content

State (govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Prem Raj

Lavesh Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Ravi Sharma Vs. State (government of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Prem Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan

G. Sagar Suri And. Anr Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State Nct of Delhi and Ors.

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Ravi Kant Sharma and Ors.

Mukesh Singh Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State (govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Prem Raj

Lavesh Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Ravi Sharma Vs. State (government of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Prem Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan

G. Sagar Suri And. Anr Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State Nct of Delhi and Ors.

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Ravi Kant Sharma and Ors.

Mukesh Singh Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (nct of Delhi)