Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Murari Lal Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 23 September, 2014
63. I do not concur with the submissions advanced by the
learned Amicus Curie/ defence counsel for the accused that expert
opinion is a weak type of evidence and can not be relied upon
independently to bring home the guilt of accused. Reliance in this
regard is placed on land mark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case
titled as Murari Lal Vs. State of UP 1980 AIR 531 wherein the
Hon'ble Court after analysing and reappreciating the entire case law on
the aspect of credibility of expert opinion has observed that :
CBI Case No.210/2019 MISC DJ ASJ No 73/2021 Page No. 33 of 60
CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. (Gokul Chand Aggarwal) (Sea Show CGHS Ltd.)
"We will first consider the argument, a stale argument
often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinionevidence
of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial
corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot
be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with observation that
the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning
his opinionevidence to the same class of evidence as that of an
accomplice and insist upon corroboration.