Can a ballistics expert be charged with perjury for changing his opinion during court testimony? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case arising from the infamous Jessica Lal murder case. The Court quashed proceedings against a ballistics expert, emphasizing the nature of expert testimony. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice T.S. Thakur (Chief Justice of India at the time) and Justice Kurian Joseph. Justice Kurian Joseph authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by Prem Sagar Manocha, a ballistics expert, against proceedings initiated by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had directed its Registrar General to file a complaint against Manocha for allegedly giving false evidence. This action stemmed from Manocha’s testimony in the Jessica Lal murder case.
In 1999, the Delhi Police registered F.I.R. No. 287 at Police Station, Mehrauli, regarding the murder of Jessica Lal. During the investigation, the police sought an expert opinion from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. The police asked three questions regarding two empty cartridges found at the crime scene.
The questions were: (1) the bore of the cartridges, (2) whether they were fired from a pistol or revolver, and (3) whether both cartridges were fired from the same firearm. Prem Sagar Manocha, then Deputy Director of the Laboratory, provided a report on February 4, 2000.
Manocha’s report stated that the cartridges were .22 caliber and appeared to have been fired from a pistol. However, he noted that a definite opinion on whether they were fired from the same firearm could not be given without examining the suspected firearm.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Jessica Lal murder case: F.I.R. No. 287 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli. |
| 19.01.2000 | Police sought expert opinion from State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. |
| 04.02.2000 | Prem Sagar Manocha, Deputy Director of the Laboratory, submitted his report. |
| 20.12.2006 | High Court convicted the accused in Criminal Appeal 193 of 2006 and initiated suo motu proceedings against 32 witnesses, including Manocha. |
| 22.05.2013 | High Court directed its Registrar General to file a complaint against Manocha under Section 340 of CrPC. |
| 06.01.2016 | Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against Manocha. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court acquitted all ten accused in the Jessica Lal murder case. Subsequently, the High Court of Delhi, in Criminal Appeal 193 of 2006, convicted the accused on December 20, 2006. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction on April 19, 2010.
During the appeal against acquittal, the High Court initiated suo motu proceedings against 32 witnesses, including Manocha, due to concerns about witnesses turning hostile. The High Court found that Manocha’s oral evidence differed from his written opinion, seemingly to favor the accused. This led the High Court to believe that Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was attracted. The High Court then directed its Registrar General to file a complaint against Manocha under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Legal Framework
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the offense of giving false evidence. It states that:
“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 other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine…… ”
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with offenses affecting the administration of justice. It allows a court to initiate an inquiry if it believes an offense under Section 195 of CrPC has been committed in relation to a proceeding before it. The court may then file a complaint before a Magistrate.
Section 340 of CrPC, prior to the 1973 amendment, was Section 479-A in the 1898 Code. The pre-amended provision mandated recording a finding after a preliminary inquiry regarding the commission of an offense. However, the 1973 Code changed “shall” to “may,” making it not mandatory to record a finding.
Arguments
The appellant, Prem Sagar Manocha, argued that as an expert, he only gave his opinion based on the court’s specific questions. He contended that his testimony did not amount to perjury.
The High Court, on the other hand, believed that Manocha’s oral testimony was a “somersault” from his written opinion. The High Court noted that Manocha initially stated he could not give a definite opinion without the firearm. However, during his court testimony, he stated that the cartridges appeared to have been fired from two different firearms. The High Court believed that this shift in opinion was to support the “two-weapon theory” of the defense.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s (Prem Sagar Manocha) Argument |
|
| High Court’s Argument |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in forming an opinion that the appellant committed an offense under Section 193 of the IPC based on his expert testimony.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in forming an opinion that the appellant committed an offense under Section 193 of the IPC based on his expert testimony. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in forming such an opinion and quashed the proceedings. | The Court found that the expert’s stand was consistent, and his oral testimony was in response to a specific court question. The Court also noted that the expert had clearly stated that a definite opinion could be given only with the examination of the suspected firearm. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Har Gobind v. State of Haryana [(1979) 4 SCC 482] | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating it was based on the pre-amended provision of the CrPC. |
| Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory under Section 340 of CrPC. |
| Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight that the expert’s opinion was inconclusive and that he was confused by the court’s question. |
| State (Delhi) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to explain that an expert’s role is to provide materials and reasons for their opinion, not to decide issues. |
| Ramesh Chandra Aggrawala v. Regency Hospitals [(2009) 9 SCC 709] | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to distinguish between an expert witness and a witness of fact. |
| Sqn. Ldr. (R) Umeed Ali Khan v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sultana Ibrahim and Others [LEX/SCPK/0483/2006] | Supreme Court of Pakistan | The Court found this case not applicable, stating that the scheme under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is different. |
| National Justice Compania Naviera SA v. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The “Ikarian Reefer”) [[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455] | Queen’s Bench (Commercial Division) | The Court cited this case to state that an expert has the freedom to change their views. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the expert’s testimony and concluded that his stand was consistent. The Court noted that Manocha’s initial report stated that a definite opinion could not be given without examining the suspected firearm. The Court also highlighted that his subsequent oral testimony was in response to a specific question from the trial court.
The Court observed that the expert had qualified his opinion by stating that a definite opinion could only be given after examining the firearm. The Court found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or provide false evidence.
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court was not justified in forming an opinion that the appellant committed an offense under Section 193 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s proceedings against the appellant were not justified. The court emphasized that an expert’s role is to provide an opinion based on their expertise, and that an expert can change their opinion if new information comes to light.
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 340 of CrPC.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that he only gave his opinion based on the court’s specific questions and that his testimony did not amount to perjury. | The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that his stand was consistent and his oral testimony was in response to a specific court question. |
| High Court’s argument that Manocha’s oral testimony was a “somersault” from his written opinion, seemingly to favor the accused. | The Court rejected this argument, noting that the expert had qualified his opinion and that his oral testimony was in response to a specific question from the trial court. |
The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Har Gobind v. State of Haryana [(1979) 4 SCC 482] | Distinguished as it was based on the pre-amended provision of the CrPC. |
| Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253] | Relied upon to emphasize that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory under Section 340 of CrPC. |
| Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1] | Referred to highlight that the expert’s opinion was inconclusive and that he was confused by the court’s question. |
| State (Delhi) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158] | Cited to explain that an expert’s role is to provide materials and reasons for their opinion, not to decide issues. |
| Ramesh Chandra Aggrawala v. Regency Hospitals [(2009) 9 SCC 709] | Used to distinguish between an expert witness and a witness of fact. |
| Sqn. Ldr. (R) Umeed Ali Khan v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sultana Ibrahim and Others [LEX/SCPK/0483/2006] | Found not applicable due to differences in the legal system. |
| National Justice Compania Naviera SA v. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The “Ikarian Reefer”) [[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455] | Cited to state that an expert has the freedom to change their views. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Consistency of the Expert’s Stand: The Court emphasized that the expert’s written report and oral testimony were consistent in stating that a definite opinion could not be given without examining the firearm.
- Nature of Expert Testimony: The Court highlighted that an expert’s role is to provide an opinion based on their expertise, and that an expert can change their opinion if new information comes to light.
- Court’s Question: The Court noted that the expert’s oral testimony was in response to a specific question from the trial court, and that the expert had not volunteered the information.
- Lack of Deliberate Falsehood: The Court found no evidence of a deliberate attempt by the expert to mislead the court or provide false evidence.
- Inconclusive Nature of Opinion: The Court observed that the expert’s opinion was not conclusive and was qualified by the fact that the firearm was not available for examination.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistency of the Expert’s Stand | 30% |
| Nature of Expert Testimony | 25% |
| Court’s Question | 20% |
| Lack of Deliberate Falsehood | 15% |
| Inconclusive Nature of Opinion | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (percentage of legal considerations) | 60% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court carefully examined the expert’s testimony, the context in which it was given, and the relevant legal provisions. The Court also considered the nature of expert evidence and the role of an expert witness in a judicial proceeding.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in initiating proceedings against the expert under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 193 IPC?
Initial Report: Expert stated a definite opinion could not be given without examining the firearm.
Court Question: Trial court asked for an opinion on whether the cartridges were fired from the same or different firearms.
Expert’s Response: Expert stated the cartridges appeared to have been fired from different firearms, but reiterated that a definite opinion could only be given after examining the firearm.
Supreme Court Analysis: The expert’s stand was consistent, and his oral testimony was in response to a specific court question. There was no deliberate attempt to mislead.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in initiating proceedings. Proceedings quashed.
The Supreme Court considered the expert’s initial report, his response to the court’s question, and the fact that he had qualified his opinion. The Court found that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the court, and that the expert’s testimony was consistent with his initial report.
The Supreme Court also considered the nature of expert testimony and the fact that an expert can change their opinion if new information comes to light. The Court held that the High Court’s proceedings were not justified, and quashed them.
The Court stated that the High Court’s opinion was not based on a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to consider the expert’s initial report and the context in which his oral testimony was given.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
“It is not a clear, conclusive, specific and definite opinion.”
“I have already stated these two cartridge cases appear to have been fired from two different fire arms. Definite opinion would have been given once the weapon is given to me for examination.”
“In the concluding part of his testimony he reaffirms the opinion given by him which is that without test firing the empties from the weapon of offence no conclusive opinion can be given.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
- An expert’s opinion is not a statement of fact but an advisory opinion based on their expertise.
- An expert can change their opinion if new information comes to light or if they are asked a specific question that requires a different response.
- Proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC should not be initiated against an expert unless there is clear evidence of deliberate falsehood or an attempt to mislead the court.
- Courts should not expect an expert to give a definite opinion if the necessary material for forming such an opinion is not available.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 340 of CrPC.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that an expert witness cannot be held liable for perjury if their opinion changes during the course of testimony, especially when the change is in response to a specific question by the court and when the expert has consistently maintained that a definite opinion can only be given with the required material. This case clarifies the scope of expert testimony and the limitations of holding experts liable for perjury. This judgment reinforces the principle that expert opinions are advisory in nature and should not be treated as absolute statements of fact.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Sagar Manocha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) clarifies the scope of expert testimony and the circumstances under which an expert can be held liable for perjury. The Court emphasized that an expert’s role is to provide an opinion based on their expertise and that an expert can change their opinion if new information comes to light. The Court quashed the proceedings against the ballistics expert, emphasizing the importance of considering the context in which expert testimony is given.
Source: Prem Sagar Manocha vs. State