- Section 51- Prem Sagar Manocha v. State
- Bench:T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
Facts:
In connection with the investigation registered at Police Station, Mehrauli (Jessica Lal Murder Case), the Police sought an expert opinion(appellant) from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. Disturbed by the conduct of many of the witnesses turning hostile, the High Court, in the appeal against acquittal, initiated suo motu proceedings, by notice dated 20.12.2006 against 32 witnesses including the appellant. After considering their replies, the proceedings against a few of them were dropped. However, the appellant and a few others were directed to be proceeded against. The Court was of the opinion that the oral evidence tendered by the appellant reflected a shift in stand from that of the written opinion which was apparently to help the accused.
Issues:
Whether the expert committed perjury
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended by the appellant that being an expert and a professional, the appellant only tendered his opinion in response to specific questions by the court and that does not amount to a borderline case of perjury.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the ballistic expert’s deposition was calculated to let the accused Manu Sharma off the hooks.It was submitted that the witness had stated that no definite opinion could be given whether the two empty cartridges were fired from the same weapon. However, on the basis of the same material, he took a somersault and gave a completely contrary opinion in the Court saying that they appear to have been fired from different weapons. It was submitted that by the time this witness stepped on to the box, the defence had formed its definite plan about a “two weapon theory”.
Judgment:
The court held that 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.
