LexPREM SAGAR MANOCHA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2016] I S.C.R. 34 PREM SAGAR MANOCHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal Appeal Nos. 9-10 of2016) JANUARY06, 2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.] 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 0 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 E F 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 - G 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 34 PREM SAGAR MANOCHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 35 initiation of proceedings u/s.340 - Proceedings u/s.340 liable to be A 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 I 898 Code and it was mandatory under the pre- amended provision to record a finding after the preliminary inquiry B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F such. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. Perjury falls under Chapter XI of the IPC "Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public ·Justice". As per G Sec~ion 193 of IPC, "whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any H 36 SUPREME COURT REPORT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.