Expert Opinion Should Not Be Vague, Even 'Rustic Villager' Can Say 'Injuries Might Be Life Threatening If Not Treated On Time': Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court recently said that the opinion of an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act should not be vague or evasive but should rather be firm and definite. Only in that situation the same is admissible in evidence under the law, the court said."It is expected from an expert that his opinion must be firm and should not be vague, bald or evasive or dependent upon...
The Rajasthan High Court recently said that the opinion of an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act should not be vague or evasive but should rather be firm and definite. Only in that situation the same is admissible in evidence under the law, the court said.
"It is expected from an expert that his opinion must be firm and should not be vague, bald or evasive or dependent upon the contingencies. The injuries should be opined to be simple or grievous in nature. The phrase used by the doctor that the “injuries might be life threatening if not treated on time” is not an opinion given by an expert doctor serving in Community Health Center. Such type of opinion can be given by any rustic villager or an illiterate person. Why the opinion is sought from the doctor, if can’t give a definite opinion," Justice Farjand Ali said.
The court said the opinion of the expert is sought only for the assistance of the court and thus, it can be said that the court is the expert of the experts.
"Whenever, an opinion is sought regarding the nature of injuries; it must be given by a specifically skilled person so as to bring him in the definition of “expert” on that particular point. It must not be fallacious or fallible as the same may instead of assisting the Court, mislead or confuse the Court. Thus in my view, the opinion should be firm and definite and only in that situation the same is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The vague, bald, probable, infirm or uncertain opinion is not an opinion of an expert....," said the court.
Justice Ali made the above observations while partly allowing a petition filed by the accused challenging the framing of charges against them for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
The alleged incident took place on 01.07.2022 and the victims were examined on the very same day. The opinion regarding the nature of injuries had been given by the Medical Officer and radiologist on 01.07.2022. However, a week later, the Investigating Officer sought for further opinion of the Medical Officer on 07.07.2022 to know whether the injuries were dangerous to the life of the victims or not. Subsequently, the Medical Officer replied by stating, “head injury of Fatan Khan might be life threatening, if not treated on time as active bleeding was present.”
The court expressed anguish at the fact that despite there being no compelling circumstances, the Investigating Officer had sought a second opinion from the medical officer after the first opinion had already been given a week ago.
The court was shocked at the fact that the medical officer decided to give a second opinion, contrary to the first, without examining the victim or without considering further details regarding the victim's health record.
Justice Ali observed that there is no opinion on record that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
"...the second opinion given by the doctor dated 07.07.2022 is in no manner can be taken as a report submitted by an expert rather a cloud of doubt arises as to what was the occasion for the Investigating Officer to seek or for the doctor to give the opinion without examining the victim injured or without examining his medical documents," said the court.
The court said there are no reasonable grounds to presume that the accused should be charged for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and thus they deserves to be discharged from that offence. It upheld charge regarding the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341. 323, 325 and 427 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Case Title: Samane Khan & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 128/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Karwarsara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA-cum-PP, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana