This article is written by Shravya Pandre of NALSAR University of Law, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
This article explores the role of expert opinion and presumptions in criminal law, specifically focusing on the presumption of death, sanity, and identifiability in the Indian legal system. It discusses the challenges and considerations in admitting expert testimony, the reliability and consequences of expert opinions, and the potential for misidentification. The article emphasizes the need for a cautious approach when considering expert opinion, the importance of evaluating its reliability and relevance, and the measures that can be implemented to reduce the risk of misidentification. Overall, it highlights the crucial role of expert opinions in ensuring justice and fairness in the legal system while also acknowledging the potential for errors and the need for continuous improvement in the utilisation of expert testimony.
Keywords
Presumption, Expert opinion, Criminal law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Burden of proof, Misidentification, Reliability, M’Naghten Rule, Irresistible Impulse Test, Presumption of sanity, DNA analysis, Death presumption, Admissibility of expert opinion, Weight of expert opinion, Wrongful convictions, Fact and law presumptions, Rebuttable presumption, Conclusive presumption
Introduction
One of the bedrocks of the nation’s legal system is the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, which provides a detailed description of the regulations governing the introduction of evidence in court. Within the complex field of Indian evidence law, where precedents and guiding principles determine the course towards justice, the contrast between legal and factual presumptions is a topic of ongoing fascination. Courtroom dynamics are greatly influenced by these legal structures, which are supported by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.[1] These constructs affect the weight of evidence given, the burden of proof, and, ultimately, the outcome of justice. Two essential elements within its broad framework are the presumptions of fact and law, which are essential in determining how legal processes are shaped and how much proof is required. In addition, the Act allows expert opinions to be admitted, giving judges access to specialised expertise that helps them make fair decisions. There have been difficulties in the interaction between these two aspects of Indian evidence law, though.
Presumptions in Criminal Law
Presumptions are either of fact or law. In the legal system, the distinction between presumptions of fact and law is essential. A legal fiction created by statutes or court precedents is called a presumption of law, sometimes referred to as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption. Legally speaking, it is unquestionably true and cannot be refuted by contrary evidence. The burden of proof completely moves to the party the presumption is used against when a legal presumption is raised, requiring them to present evidence refuting the presumption. On the other hand, a presumption of fact, also known as a rebuttable presumption, is derived from the evidence that is at hand in a case and is subject to challenge by opposing evidence.
Even if presumptions of fact need some supporting evidence to be established, once they are, the onus of proof may move to the other side, who must then present evidence to refute the presumption and demonstrate the contrary fact. These differences between the two categories of presumptions are fundamental in determining how the legal system functions and how the burden of proof is distributed in different court cases. In this article we will analyse three such presumptions and the role of expert evidence pertaining to them in criminal law.
Presumption of Death and expert Opinion
A person is believed to be dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if they haven’t been seen or heard from for seven years.[2] This is a “presumption of law.” The presumption of death is a legal doctrine that shifts the burden of proof from the party making the claim to the party challenging it. This implies that the accused now has the duty of proving the missing individual is still alive. This legal provision has historically been based on the notion that it is reasonable to assume that an individual has passed away after such a long absence. But this assumption is coming under more and more scrutiny as forensic sciences and technology have developed, particularly in the area of DNA analysis and identification. A considerably higher degree of certainty than was previously conceivable to affirm an individual’s presence or absence can potentially be achieved with DNA evidence. This poses a crucial question: Should the legal system stick with conventional ideas of absence or should it change to accommodate new scientific understandings that can yield more conclusive results?
The Madras High Court heard a case in “Ravikumar v. Muthulakshmi Ammal (2003)” where the plaintiff sought a portion of the property her brother, who had been missing for more than seven years, had left behind. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to her share by supposing the missing person’s death based on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.[3] The case of “Gnanaranjan Jena v. State of Orissa” (2001) in the Orissa High Court is one example of how technology is changing in the context of death presumption. In this instance, the court recognised the significance of contemporary forensic methods, such as DNA testing, and decided that these cutting-edge scientific approaches should be taken into account in addition to customary assumptions when they are accessible and capable of conclusively determining an individual’s presence or absence. This case illustrates how the legal system must change to keep up with technological advancements.
Reliability and Consequences
The presumption of death, a legal principle that assumes an individual is dead after a certain period of absence, is often challenged by expert opinion, particularly in cases of missing persons or suspected deaths. While expert testimony can provide valuable insights, it also raises concerns about reliability and the potential for injustice.
Expert testimony is considered admissible in court when it is based on specialized knowledge and can assist the court in understanding complex issues beyond the common knowledge of lay persons. However, experts are not infallible, and their opinions can be influenced by various factors, including their own biases, the quality of evidence, and methodologies employed. In death investigations, the lack of reliable evidence often makes it difficult for experts to form definitive conclusions. This poses a challenge in determining whether expert opinion can convincingly rebut the presumption of death.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically addresses the admissibility of expert opinion in Section 45.[4] It states that expert opinion is admissible if it is based on facts not within the common knowledge of the court. The weight given to expert opinion depends on various factors, including the expert’s qualifications, the methodology used, and the consistency of the opinion with other evidence. In State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Maruti Patil (2012), the Supreme Court of India emphasized that expert opinion must be “cogent, credible, and convincing” to be admissible in court.[5]
A mistaken expert opinion could lead to the wrongful declaration of death, with severe legal and financial consequences for the individual and their family. Prematurely declaring someone dead could deny them the opportunity to defend themselves against criminal charges or assert their legal rights. This highlights the need for a cautious approach when considering expert opinion in such sensitive matters.
The decision to rely on expert opinion to rebut the presumption of death requires careful consideration of both reliability and fairness. Expert opinion can be a valuable tool in determining death, but it must be carefully evaluated in light of its reliability and the potential for injustice. Courts must strike a balance between the need for accurate information and the protection of individual rights.
The Presumption of Sanity and Expert Opinion
In the realm of Indian evidence law, the presumption of sanity holds a pivotal position. This presumption assumes that every individual is of sound mind and capable of rational thought and action unless proven otherwise. This presumption plays a crucial role in criminal proceedings, where it serves as the starting point for determining an accused person’s culpability. The presumption of sanity finds its foundation in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states, “Every person is presumed to be of sound mind in the absence of contrary proof.”[6] This presumption reflects the fundamental principle that an individual is not held responsible for their actions if they were not of sound mind at the time of the offense.
Role of Expert Opinion
While the presumption of sanity stands as a general rule, it is not absolute. Expert opinion, particularly from psychiatrists and psychologists, can play a significant role in challenging and potentially rebutting this presumption. Expert testimony can provide valuable insights into an individual’s mental state, assessing their cognitive abilities, judgment, and the presence of any mental disorders that may have affected their actions.
Indian courts have recognized the importance of expert opinion in determining an accused person’s mental state. A notable case, Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2010), highlights the significance of expert testimony in assessing the mental state of an accused person. In this case, the court held that expert opinion was crucial in determining whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder that could negate their criminal responsibility.[7]
Theories such as the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test have also influenced the evaluation of expert opinion in determining insanity. The M’Naghten Rule, established in 1843, focuses on whether the accused knew the nature and quality of their act and whether they understood that it was wrong. The Irresistible Impulse Test, on the other hand, considers whether the accused had the capacity to control their actions despite knowing that they were wrong.
In Indian evidence law, the presumption of sanity serves as a crucial starting point for determining an accused person’s mental state. However, expert opinion plays a significant role in challenging this presumption and providing valuable insights into an individual’s mental capacity.
Reliability and Relevance of Expert Testimony
In criminal proceedings, the presumption of sanity holds a significant position, asseting that an individual is of sound mind unless proven otherwise. Expert testimony, particularly from psychiatrists and psychologists, plays a crucial role in challenging this presumption, providing insights into an accused person’s mental state and their ability to understand their actions or control their behavior. The first hurdle lies in establishing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. Courts carefully assess the expert’s qualifications, experience, methodology, and the general acceptance of their field of expertise. If the expert’s testimony is deemed unreliable or based on outdated or unaccepted methods, it may not be admitted. This ensures that the court relies on credible and scientifically sound evidence when making decisions regarding an accused person’s mental state.
The presumption of sanity is a strong legal principle, and expert testimony must be compelling enough to overcome this presumption. The expert must provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder that significantly impaired their ability to understand their actions or control their behavior at the time of the alleged offense. This requires a high standard of proof, ensuring that the expert’s testimony is not merely speculative or based on subjective opinions.
In some cases, there may be conflicting expert opinions regarding the defendant’s mental state. Courts must carefully evaluate these conflicting opinions, considering the qualifications, methodology, and reasoning of each expert. They may also appoint independent experts to provide additional assessments. This process helps to ensure that the court has a comprehensive understanding of the defendant’s mental state and can make an informed decision based on all available evidence.
Expert testimony is not the sole determinant of insanity. Courts also consider other evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, the defendant’s behavior and statements, and any prior mental health records. The court must weigh the expert testimony against all other evidence to reach a comprehensive conclusion. This holistic approach ensures that the court considers all relevant factors when making a determination regarding the defendant’s mental state.
Admitting expert testimony against the presumption of insanity must not prejudice the defendant’s rights. Courts must ensure that the defense has ample opportunity to cross-examine the expert, present their own expert witnesses, and challenge the prosecution’s evidence. This safeguards the defendant’s right to a fair trial and ensures that the court’s decision is based on a thorough and impartial examination of all available evidence.
Presumption of Identifiability and Expert Opinion
In the domain of Indian evidence law, the presumption of identifiability holds a crucial position. This presumption assumes that an individual’s identity can be established through various means, including visual recognition, fingerprints, DNA evidence, and other identifying marks. This presumption plays a significant role in criminal proceedings, where it serves as the foundation for identifying suspects and linking them to the crime.
The presumption of identifiability finds its basis in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states, “The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.” This presumption reflects the general belief that individuals can be reliably identified through various means.[8]
Role of Expert Opinion
While the presumption of identifiability stands as a general rule, it is not absolute. Expert opinion, particularly from forensic scientists and fingerprint examiners, can play a significant role in challenging and potentially rebutting this presumption. Expert testimony can provide valuable insights into the reliability of identification methods, assess the quality of evidence, and determine the likelihood of misidentification.
Indian courts have recognized the importance of expert opinion in evaluating the accuracy of identification evidence. For instance, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Singh (2011), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for expert opinion to assess the reliability of fingerprint evidence.[9] In the case of, Smt. Kaushilya Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004), highlights the significance of expert testimony in determining the identity of an accused person.[10] In this case, the court held that expert opinion was crucial in evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony and other identifying marks.
Potential for Misidentification and Consequences
Despite advancements in identification technologies and methods, the potential for misidentification remains a significant concern. Misidentification can arise from various factors, including human error, technological limitations, intentional deception, cognitive biases, and misinterpretation of circumstantial evidence. Human error can occur due to fatigue, biases, or the quality of evidence. Technological limitations can affect fingerprint analysis, facial recognition, and other identification methods, particularly when dealing with low-quality images or environmental factors. Intentional deception, such as impersonation, can pose challenges, especially when sophisticated methods are employed. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, can lead to misinterpretation of evidence, focusing on information that reinforces existing beliefs while overlooking contradictory factors. Misinterpretation of circumstantial evidence can occur when it is mistakenly interpreted as identification evidence, potentially leading to wrongful convictions.
The consequences of misidentification are far-reaching, impacting both the accused and the true perpetrators. For the accused, misidentification can result in wrongful convictions, imprisonment, irreparable damage to reputation and relationships, and psychological trauma. For the true perpetrators, misidentification allows them to evade justice, potentially continuing their criminal activities and leaving the actual victims without closure.
To reduce the risk of misidentification and protect the justice system’s integrity, several measures can be implemented. These include proper training and standardization of identification procedures, quality assurance measures, independent review, a holistic approach to evidence, and transparency and accountability. Training and standardization ensure investigators and experts are trained to identify and mitigate biases, adhere to standardized protocols, and maintain proficiency in their respective fields. Quality assurance measures include regular audits, proficiency testing, and reference standards to benchmark performance and identify areas for improvement. Independent review offers unbiased perspectives, challenging assumptions, and identifying potential flaws in the identification process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of expert opinion in various aspects of criminal law, such as the presumption of death, sanity, and identifiability, cannot be understated. Experts play a crucial role in providing insights and assessments that aid the legal system in making well-informed decisions.
The presumption of death, often a deeply sensitive and complex matter, relies on expert opinions to ascertain the reliability of evidence and ensure that justice is served. The consequences of presuming death without proper expertise can be dire, affecting not only the individuals involved but also society as a whole. Similarly, in cases involving the presumption of sanity, expert opinions are invaluable in determining a defendant’s mental state and their ability to stand trial. The reliability and relevance of these expert testimonies can significantly impact the outcome of a case and the potential consequences for the accused.
Moreover, when it comes to the presumption of identifiability, expert opinions are essential in minimizing the risk of misidentification and wrongful convictions. Their role in assessing the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence can prevent grave miscarriages of justice. In all these areas of criminal law, the collaboration between the legal system and experts is vital to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect the rights of individuals. It is incumbent upon the legal community to continue to scrutinize the role of expert opinion, ensuring its reliability and relevance, and continually seeking to improve the processes that govern its utilization.
The potential for errors in evidence and the far-reaching consequences of errors in presumptions within criminal law underscore the necessity of expert opinions. As we move forward, the legal system must remain vigilant in upholding the principles of justice and fairness, using expert testimony as a powerful tool to make informed and equitable decisions.
[1] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[2] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 108, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[3] CASEMINE, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea7fb4607dba377ff0f811 (last visited Nov. 4, 2023).
[4] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 45, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[5] State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Maruti Patil., (2012) 13 SCC 363
[6] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 105, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[7] Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka., (2010) 7 SCC 261
[8] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 114, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[9] State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Singh (2011) 10 SCC 257
[10] Smt. Kaushilya Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 1 MPJR 492
0 Comments