1999 Supreme(SC) 1010

1999(8) Supreme 401
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
K.T. Thomas & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Jai Lal & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 1997
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 524-529 of 1997 and 531-537 of 1997
Decided on 13-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Dr. K.S. Chaudhan, Advocate.

Important Points
1. An expert witness, is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice, or observation; and he must have a special knowledge of the subject.
2. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. Report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence auto­matically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross-examination.

Headnote:(i) Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45 - Expert evidence-Criteria for admission-Expert must have a special knowledge of subject-It has to be shown that he has made a special study of subject or acquired special experience-His evidence is an advisory character-Credibility of witness depends on reason stated in support of his conclusions and data and materials furnished which form basis of his conclusion-Report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically-He has to be examined as a witness in Court.

       Held : An expert witness, is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice, or observation; and he must have a special knowledge of the subject. (Para 13)

       Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, 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. (Para 17)

       An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an 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 this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelli­gible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. (Para 18)

       The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence auto­matically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross-examination. (Para 19)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 468 r/w Section 120B - Pre­vention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 5(2) - Allegation that accused persons, government officials inflated quantities of scabbed apples procured and des­troyed and caused loss to government exchequer - Government constituted committee consisting of Government Officials and Pan­chayat Pradhans and Panches to procure and destroy scabbed apples and to compensate agricul­turists-Appellants were alleged to have inflated procurement in re­cords and caused loss to Government-No direct evi­dence-Circum­stantial evidence-Expert evidence of District Horticult­ure Officer-Expert’s opinion that yield was blow and procurement was inflated in accounts-Expert had not stated anything in his testimony to show that he made any scientific study or research is assessing productivity of apples-Glaring omissions and inadequacies in report not explain­ed-Contrary expert opinion in defence by a Professor of Horticulture-Expert evidence clearly unreliable-High Court rightly held prosecution failed to establish charge against accused-Acquit­tal justified.

       Held : The question for consideration is whether the evidence of Shri P.C. Panwar who was examined as an expert witness measures up to the well accepted principles for judging the credibility of such an evi­dence. As noted earlier, Shri Panwar has not stated anything in his testimony to show that he had made any scientific study or research in assessing the productivity of apple trees in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He does not even state whether he had undertaken any such work prior to the present case. No doubt as an officer of the Horti­culture Department of the State Government he might have acquired some experience in the matter but that is not sufficient to make him an expert in the field and to give the label of ‘expert evidence’ to his testimony. A perusal of the report submitted by Shri Panwar glaring omissions and inadequacies come to light. From the report it appears that against several trees in the orchards in question the productive capacity is shown as nil. It is neither explained in the report nor in the evidence of the expert in what circumstance some trees in the orchard were branded by him as non-productive. The entire basis for the assessment of productivity as evident from his deposition is counting of spurs on the trees the details of which are wanting in many of the data sheets attached to the report. Even taking his evi­dence on its face value, in some of the cases the maximum yield of the orchard works out at quantities much more than the stock purchased from the grower which prima facie goes to show that there has been no inflation of the stock brought by the grower to the procurement centre which was purchased from him. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that the defence has adduced the evidence of Shri Thakur, a retired professor or Horticulture of the University of Shimla and Shri Shamsher Singh a grower of apple fruits whose opinion run counter to the evidence by Shri Panwar. Comparing the evidence of the experts brought on record by the parties, it is difficult to come to a defi­nite conclusion that the accused persons have deliberately entered inflated quantities of scabbed apple produced in the orchard in ques­tion which were purchased by the State Government. (Para 20)

       Further there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in support of the charge of conspiracy amongst the accused persons to cheat the State exchequer and with that object having entered inflated quanti­ties of scabbed apple brought by the growers as already stated. It was the duty of the non-official members of the team to certify about the genuineness of the growers and the stock of scabbed appeal brought by them having been grown in their orchards. There is no stipulation in the modalities to show that the public servants who are strangers to the area had no role to play in this matter. Therefore, the prosecu­tion case, as contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, was that the quantity of scabbed apple stated to have been purchased from the accused growers could not have been produced in their or­chards and the inflated quantity of stock leads to an inference that the while exercise was a part of criminal conspiracy to cheat the State Government particularly when the accused growers accepted the position that they have sold quantities of apples as entered in the records and received the amount as price thereof. But the crucial factor is that they denied allegation that the stock brought by them to the procurement and destruction centre was not grown in their orchard. This crucial factor is sought to be proved by drawing an inference from the evidence of Shri Panwar. As noted above Shri Pan­war’s evidence is beset with many unsatisfactory features which ren­ders it clearly unreliable and in any case inadequate to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons. (Para 21)

       On a close scrutiny of the entire case we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was right in taking the view that the prose­cution has failed to establish the charges against the accused persons and rightly acquitted them of the same. (Para 22)