The essential principle governing all expert evidence is that a Court is not to surrender its own judgment to that of experts or delegate its authority to a third part but should judge the vlue of the expert evidenvce as it does any other evidence and much depends on the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the question of law is concerned, there is nothing in Evidence Act to require the evidence given by the expert in any particular case to be corborated before it could be acted upon as sufficient proof of what the expert stated.The C, Curt should satisfy itself of the vlue of the evidence of the expert in the same way as it must satisfy itself of the value of other evidence. But in your case the seizure of the vicera has turned hostile to the prosecution and in that circumstances the prosecution can with the permission of the Court Cross Examine him to extract the truth from his mouth, on top of that summon the doctor who has examined the vicera and to reveal his findings on the vicera. All the best.