UNVEILING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN PRESUMPTION AND EXPERT OPINION

This article is written byShreya Manoga of 3^rd Semester of BALLB (Hons.) of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT-

In the world of decision-making, assumptions and professional judgment are vital components in a variety of domains, from science and law to daily life. This abstract shows the complex relationship between expert opinion and assumption and how it affects the decision-making process. When there is insufficient information to make an informed decision, people use assumption, which is frequently based on common knowledge or social expectations, as a cognitive shortcut. It is based on the idea that the most accurate explanation or solution is usually the most straightforward one in many situations. In contrast, expert opinion makes use of unique expertise and experience to offer advice and insights in challenging and domain-specific situations. Experts provide important knowledge that can have a big impact because of their training and experience.

The advantages and restrictions of both presumption and expert opinion are discussed in the abstract. Although assumption can speed up decision-making, when it is applied excessively or when it is not supported by the facts, it can result in biases and errors. Although valuable, expert opinion is susceptible to biases, and there are differences in the reliability of experts. As a result, for decision-making to be effective, a balance between assumption and expert opinion is essential.

In the absence of hard proof, assumption—which is frequently based on common sense or legal precedent—serves as a foundational component in decision-making. It is useful for accelerating decisions and simplifying decision-making procedures. Critical factors to take into account are the possibility of bias and the requirement for a thorough assessment of the underlying assumptions.

The abstract also explores the relationship between presumption and expert opinion, providing examples of situations in which presumptions could influence the choice and interpretation of expert testimony. It highlights the dynamic nature of decision-making environments while examining the difficulties presented by the possible collision between assumptions and developing expert knowledge.

Additionally, the synergy between expert opinion and assumption is highlighted in this abstract. Expert opinions are frequently based on well-established assumptions, and their observations may support or contradict these assumptions. Making decisions that are stronger and better informed can come from integrating both factors. In summary, the interaction between expert opinion and presumption is a complex and dynamic part of decision-making. Decision-makers may negotiate complex choices with more clarity and precision and produce more informed and successful outcomes by being aware of their roles and potential hazards. Two separates but connected ideas, assumptions, and expert opinions have a great deal of influence when it comes to making decisions in a variety of fields, including science, law, and daily life. These ideas stand for essential cognitive skills that people and society need to get by in a complicated, uncertain, and incompletely informed world. Unraveling the complex web of human decision-making requires an understanding of the subtle link between assumption—which is frequently based on popular knowledge or societal expectations—and expert opinion, which is informed by specialized knowledge and experience.

In this study, we examine the interactions, benefits, drawbacks, and synergies between expert opinion and assumption in the context of decision-making. By looking at these two aspects, we hope to highlight the crucial roles they play in influencing our decisions and assessments, both as a group and as individuals. We investigate the foundations of assumption and how it functions as a cognitive shortcut that facilitates decision-making in situations where people lack complete information. We also explore the role that experts play in directing decision-making processes, the importance of expert opinion, and the use of domain-specific knowledge. Our goal in doing this research is to offer a thorough understanding of how expert opinion and assumption interact to shape the field of decision-making.

Our goal is to expose the drawbacks of relying too much on assumptions or the possible biases in expert opinion, and more significantly, how a thoughtful combination of the two can result in better informed and useful decision-making.

To demonstrate the usefulness of assumption and professional opinion as we begin this investigation, we will look at case studies and real-world situations. This will help us gain a better grasp of how these ideas influence our decisions, our communities, and our future. Presumption and expert opinion play crucial roles in human cognition and judgment, and this research allows readers to explore this intriguing and complex world.

KEYWORDS-

Presumption, Expert opinion, Presumptive reasoning, Expert testimony, Assumptions in decision-making, Cognitive biases, Decision-making processes, Presumption of innocence, Legal presumptions, Expertise in decision-making, Evidentiary presumptions, Rationality and judgment, Heuristics and biases, Expert judgment, Decision analysis

INTRODUCTION-

Two essential components of decision-making, legal proceedings, and daily thinking are assumption and expert opinion. These ideas are essential in forming our perceptions of different problems, affecting our decisions, and assisting us in navigating challenging circumstances.

The term “presumption” describes a preconceived notion or assumption about a specific fact or circumstance that is frequently supported by logic, common experience, or legal precepts. It provides a basis for making assumptions when there isn’t any hard data. Inherent in human thought processes, assumptions play a crucial role in the operation of legal systems by assisting in the establishment of a prima facie case or determining the burden of proof.

The two cornerstones of the decision-making structure are assumption and expert opinion, each of which adds a distinct perspective to the intricate web of decisions and conclusions. A cognitive quick cut that offers a default assumption or inference in the lack of specific evidence, assumption plays a crucial role in the complex web of human thinking and governance. Presumptions are essential for accelerating decision-making processes and creating preliminary frameworks for understanding since they are based on common sense, legal customs, or social standards.

In contrast, expert opinion is based on the specific knowledge, experience, and perceptions of people who are recognized as authorities in their particular disciplines. Expert judgements impact a wide range of sectors, including scientific laboratories, courtrooms, policy formulations, and many other areas.

Expert opinion, on the other hand, consists of the perceptions and assessments made by those who have particular knowledge, abilities, or experience in a particular sector. Experts are asked to share their knowledgeable viewpoints on subjects that are beyond the comprehension of the general public. Because of their experience, their opinions are respected and frequently prove to be helpful in court cases, research projects, and other situations where specialized knowledge is required.

It’s interesting to see how assumptions and expert opinion interact because assumptions can influence whether expert input is needed and expert opinions have the power to confirm or refute presumptions that already exist. Collectively, they mold the stories that serve as a guide for those making decisions, impacting the resolution of court cases, discussions about public policy, and other facets of both public and private life.

OBJECTIVES-

The current work is trying to find out how the rule of presumption plays an important role in legal decision-making. The current work aims to examine the definition and concept of presumption in the legal context, including its various forms and types Therefore, my objective here is to add to this current study the analysis of news articles, journals, articles, statistical data, books, etc. Therefore, this research work focuses on: –

1. To examine the definition and concept of presumption in the legal context, including its various forms and types
2. To investigate the role of presumption in the evaluation of evidence, including the weight given to presumptions in legal decision-making
3. To review the relevant evidence act’s legal provisions regarding expert opinion and presumption (e.g., Federal Rules of Evidence, Indian Evidence Act, etc.) and to investigate the difficulties surrounding the application of expert opinions in the legal profession, including potential conflicts of interest, bias, and dependability.
4. To look into how recent court rulings or legislative changes have altered the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony, as well as how these changes have affected the use of expert opinions in court proceedings.

DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTION

A legal principle known as the presumption under the Evidence Act permits certain facts [1]to be presumed or inferred based on other proven facts or evidence. Presumption eventually means determining certain facts based on the possibility[2]. It is an evidentiary rule that helps assess the likelihood or veracity of a given assertion or claim. In the absence of direct proof, the court might make an inference thanks to the presumption, which functions as a legal fiction.

The Evidence Act offers a statutory framework for the use of presumptions in court cases; this framework differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It lays out precise principles and norms about the kinds of assumptions that are permissible and the situations in which they are appropriate. The Act may further specify the implications of not meeting the burden of proof necessary to refute a presumption.

CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTION

To expedite legal proceedings, the concept of presumption[3] is crucial since it permits courts to make reasonable assumptions without needing all evidence to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on logic, experience, and common sense, assumptions serve as a framework for decision-making to facilitate the administration of justice.

Two sorts of presumptions exist: rebuttable and irrebuttable. A rebuttable presumption may be refuted or proven false by introducing opposing data. An irrebuttable presumption, on the other hand, cannot be refuted and is assumed to be true. In judicial procedures, rebuttable presumptions are more common since they provide flexibility and allow for the evaluation of all relevant information.

ROLE OF PRESUMPTION IN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

A key component of the legal and critical thinking processes is the use of assumption in the evaluation of the evidence. The term “presumption” describes the first conviction that something is true or legitimate unless it is shown to be false. Assumption is a key component in directing the decision-making process while assessing the evidence.

IMPORTANT FACETS OF THE PRESUMPTION IN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE-

 The following are important facets of the presumption’s function in the assessment of the evidence:

• Assumption of innocence: A cornerstone of criminal law is the assumption of innocence. It implies that a person is presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By shifting the burden of proof from the accused to the prosecution to establish guilt rather than the other way around, this presumption directs the assessment of the evidence.
• Presumption of Regularity: There is frequently an assumption that public servants and agencies operate in compliance with established laws and procedures in administrative and bureaucratic settings. This presumption can be utilized as a starting point for assessing facts about government actions, and the onus of proving otherwise may be with the party contesting the regularity.
• Presumption of Truthfulness: When proof is offered, it’s common to assume that the witnesses and the data are accurate and true. Nevertheless, cross-examination, the introduction of contradicting evidence, and other strategies can be used to refute this assumption.
• Presumption of Admissibility: Unless there are particular legal grounds for its rejection, courts, and other decision-making bodies generally assume that evidence is admissible. The parties concerned must make an argument for or even against the evidence.
• Presumption of Validity: There is frequently a presumption that agreements and papers are valid in civil cases, contracts, and other legal concerns. This assumption, however, may be refuted by providing opposing evidence.
• Presumption of Regularity in Business Records: There is sometimes an assumption in business and financial concerns that records kept in the regular course of business are accurate and trustworthy. Unless they are contested, these records are often assumed to be admissible as evidence.
• Hearsay Presumption: Hearsay is an out-of-court comment submitted as evidence of the veracity of an allegation. In legal processes, hearsay evidence is generally presumed not to be admissible. There are several exceptions to this rule, though, and to introduce hearsay evidence, parties may need to refute this assumption.

UNDERSTANDING OF PRESUMPTION

 Edward Coke[4] included it in English law in the seventeenth century. One exemption to the general rule that states that one must verify what one asserts is an assumption. While assumptions aren’t specifically defined in the Evidence Act, they simply mean that a fact exists because another truth or set of facts is known or demonstrated to exist. Additionally, based on prior knowledge of their link, it could be an inference about the presence of one truth from the existence of another.

• Section 145 of the Act further states-

(i) Whenever this Act allows the Court to presume a fact, it may either consider it proven unless and until it is proven false, or it may request evidence to support the claim.

(ii) Whenever the Act instructs the Court to presume a fact, it will consider the claim to be proven unless and until it is refuted.

(iii) If this Act declares one fact to be conclusive proof of another, the court will consider the other fact proven upon proof of the first and will not permit evidence to be presented to refute it.

A Systematization of Assumptions-Presumptions is often either true or false.

• Assumption of Legality-

A presumption of law is only one that is mandated by the law and must be made in the absence of contradictory evidence. The inferences that can be inferred from a particular set of facts that are required by law and must always be made as an unavoidable result of these circumstances are known as the presumption of law. The categories of presumption of law are as follows:

Rebuttable Presumption (Presumption juris)

Reversible assumption Simply put, it refers to an assumption that a court would reject in the absence of stronger or more convincing evidence to the contrary. To put it another way, a party that the assumption is formed against is free to present evidence to refute the

According to Section 145{2} of the Evidence Act of 2011, a court will consider a fact proved unless and until it is refuted unless instructed otherwise by this Act.

Irrebuttable presumption (Presumption Juris et de jure)

An irrebuttable presumption is unquestionable, and conclusive, and does not accept evidence that contradicts it. The Evidence Act’s Section 145{3} states as follows: When this Act declares one fact to be conclusive proof of another, the court must accept the second as established based on the proof of the first and will not permit evidence to be presented to refute it.

ILLUSTRATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF REBUTTABLE ASSUMPTIONS-

Although there are countless instances of rebuttable assumptions, it is appropriate to list a few below under –

Sections 155 and 162 of the Evidence Act make presumptions on the authenticity of documents 20 years and older-

Until the opposite is demonstrated, this presumption is that a document that has been proven to be 20 years old, as well as any recitals or information included in a document that has been proven to be 20 years old, are authentic.

Thus, if Mr. A presents a deed of assignment that was executed in 1993 or a certified true copy of a deed of assignment that was executed in 1993 in dispute with Mr. B regarding ownership of a certain piece of land, the court is likely to believe that the deed is genuine and that the data which is been provided is real.

Section 166 of the Evidence Act, 2011: Presumption as to the Existence of a marriage-

It is easy to assume that a man ({Mr. A}) and a woman ({Mrs. C}) are living together as husband and wife when they are {cohabiting}. Additionally, the marriage of Mr. A and Mrs. C is regarded as legitimate in cases where they underwent a customary law ceremony or a normal ceremony recognized by the Act.

Section 165 of the Evidence Act of 2011 and Section 84 of the Matrimonial Causes Act presuppose legality-

the belief that a child born during a marriage is entitled to legal protection. In addition, the infant is considered to be the child of the man and woman if it was born within 280 days of the marriage ending. DNA tests, nevertheless, might allow the man to refute this. It is frequently requested, particularly in wills cases when there is disagreement over whether a certain individual was the deceased’s child.

Legality is required by Section 84 of the Matrimonial Causes Act and Section 165 of the Evidence Act of 2011-

The conviction that a child born within the context of a marriage should have legal protection. Furthermore, if the baby was born within 280 days of the marriage dissolving, it is regarded as the man and woman’s kid. However, the male might be able to dispute this through DNA testing. This kind of request is common, especially in wills proceedings when there is a dispute regarding who was the deceased’s kid.

Presumption of Negligence {res Ipsa loquitur}

If A collides with B from behind while operating his vehicle, the legal system will assume that A’s carelessness caused the collision.

The ruling in EJISUN V AJAO & ORS {1975} 1 N.M.L.R. P.4 established that the first defendant must have driven his vehicle negligently since it caused the plaintiff to be struck from behind by the defendant’s vehicle. The first defendant has the responsibility to provide a sufficient justification for his actions, and if he does not, he will be held accountable for carelessness.

Sections 63 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act of 2004 and Section 163 of the Evidence Act of 2011 establish the presumption about the regularity of a board of directors’ actions on behalf of a company and the regularity of deeds executed by a company.

It is assumed that the board of directors of a corporation has the authority to act on the company’s behalf, this presumption assumes that any action taken by the board on behalf of the company is regular and lawful.

For instance, the court determined that the security provided by the company’s board of directors was appropriate in BETRACO CO LTD. V. SPRING BANK LTD. {2015} 5 NWLR {PT. 1451} 107 because the outsider was under no duty to investigate the matter.

Examples of Irrebuttable Presumptions-

According to section 36 {6} of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, a company’s certificate of formation serves as prima facie proof that it complies with all registration requirements. A company’s proper registration is attested to by its certificate of incorporation.

The belief that a child younger than seven years old is incapable of criminal behavior. {Criminal Code Act Section 30}

According to the law, a kid under the age of seven cannot be guilty of a crime since they lack the capacity for guilt. As a result, if a child is found to be younger than seven, the court will try them and won’t even allow evidence to be shown proving the youngster was capable of committing a crime.

Perception- is illegal for a male individual under the age of twelve to possess criminal knowledge (Section 30 of the Criminal Code Act).

Evidence proving a boy under the age of twelve had sexual relations with another individual will not be admitted into court.

Presumption of Facts-

Every case is constructed using facts as its foundation. A logical inference or conclusion that can be made from facts or circumstantial evidence is known as a presumption of facts.

According to Section 145 {1} of the Evidence Act, a court may either consider a fact to be proved unless and until it is refuted, or it may request proof of the fact whenever it is granted by this act.

Further, according to Section 167 of the Evidence Act, the court may assume the existence of any fact that it believes likely to have occurred, taking into account the regular sequence of natural events, human behavior, and both public and private business about the facts.

For facts to be inferred by the court, they need to be pertinent to the facts at hand, contemporaneous with the events in question, or supporting and illuminating the facts at hand.

Presumption related to the documents that are not tendered-Section 167{D} Evidence There is a presumption that holds that the evidence. In addition, the person placed on notice needs to be in a position to supply the document, but they are not required to produce it.

Section 167 {E}, Evidence Act: Presumption as to do in the hand of the obligor {Debtor}

If, as per the terms of the contract, A {creditor} grants B {debtor} a credit facility and accepts B’s property-related documents as collateral for the loan, those documents are later discovered to be in B’s possession. Since B has fulfilled his end of the bargain, it is assumed that he gained possession. It can be refuted by A by demonstrating that B obtained the document either through fraud, coercion, or false pretenses in order to deprive A of it.

Section 167 {a} of the Evidence Act, 2011 states that unless a man can provide proof of his ownership, it is presumed that he is either the thief or that he acquired the stolen items knowing them to be stolen.

On page 455 of BANJO V STATE {2013} 16 NWLR {PT. 1381}. Soon after a robbery occurrence, the accused was discovered in possession of some stolen goods and was unable to explain how they came into his possession. It was said that he was one of the criminals who took part in the theft. The accused may refute the assumption by providing convincing justification for how he got into possession of the property.

SECTION 168 {4} of the Evidence Act, 2011 Presumption as to the holding of a meeting   Validity on the meetings of a corporate body and Appointment of Principal Officers

Until the opposite is demonstrated, it is assumed that a meeting was conducted when minutes of a supposedly held business meeting are provided and shown to be signed by the chairman. Additionally, appointments made during such a meeting are deemed valid.

In conclusion, presumption is a fundamental idea in the assessment of the evidence, influencing the way that evidence and testimony are initially seen. It affects the standards of evidence needed to prove or refute facts, as well as the burden of proof. Although presumptions serve as a foundation for assessing the facts, they can be refuted or contested by the introduction of opposing data or persuasive arguments. Depending on the legal system and the circumstances, certain presumptions and their relevance are important in determining the case.

EXPERT OPINION

In the context of evidence law, expert opinion refers to a certain kind of testimony or evidence given by a person who is regarded as an authority in a particular field or subject. This expert’s opinion[5] may be voiced on specific topics due to their unique knowledge, experience, and skill. In court cases, expert opinions are frequently permitted as evidence to aid jurors and judges in understanding difficult cases and reaching well-informed conclusions.

For instance, in the United States, expert testimony is admitted under the guidelines of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and related state laws. According to these guidelines, an expert witness must typically possess specific expertise that can help the fact-finder.

Depending on the jurisdiction, the “Daubert” or “Frye” standard may be applied for admitting expert testimony. According to these requirements, before the expert’s opinion can be given to the jury, the court must assess its validity and applicability. The expert’s credentials, the methodology employed, whether the opinions have undergone peer review, and whether the conclusions are widely accepted in the relevant scientific or professional community are only a few of the elements that the court may take into account.

After being accepted, the expert is free to offer advice on any topic falling under their purview, which could include problems about engineering, forensics, psychology, medicine, or any other specialized profession. The expert’s job is to support the fact-finder in making well-informed decisions by drawing on their expertise and analysis.

It’s crucial to remember that not all expert judgments are accepted at face value in court, and there may be legal obstacles to expert testimony’s admission. The criteria and regulations for accepting expert opinions can differ amongst different legal systems.

HISTORICAL VIEW: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY ADMISSIBILITY  AND RELIABILITY  IN INDIA-

Court decisions and legislative changes have had a substantial impact on the admissibility and dependability of expert testimony in India over the years. This historical viewpoint offers a summary of how expert testimony has changed over time in the Indian judicial system.

COLONIAL IMPACT: THE 1872 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

The Indian Evidence Act passed in 1872 during British colonial authority, set the groundwork for the regulation of expert testimony in India. The foundation for expert witness admittance was set by this law. Notably, Section 45 of the Act addressed expert opinions on matters about foreign law, art, and science. The Act made it clear that expert opinions might be admitted, but the court would decide how much weight to give them. Comprehensive guidelines regarding the credentials and dependability of experts were not included in the Act.

EARLY CHALLENGES-

Expert testimony presented some difficulties for the Indian legal system in the early years after independence. There was frequent disagreement over the admissibility of forensic evidence, medical judgments, and other specialized knowledge, which resulted in inconsistent judicial verdicts.

HISTORIC COURT DECISIONS-

The trustworthiness and admissibility of expert testimony have been profoundly affected by several historic court decisions rendered in India:

a. The 2005 case of Dr. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab[6]: highlighted the significance of expert testimony in situations involving medical negligence. The Supreme Court underlined that precise expert judgments and standards are necessary to establish medical negligence.

b. In the 2019 case of Ramesh Dahiya v. State of Haryana: the court established a precedent for the admissibility of forensic evidence and stressed the importance of such evidence, especially in criminal proceedings.

c. Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021): This case highlighted the significance of financial experts in intricate financial concerns by addressing the usage of financial experts in marriage conflicts.

LEGAL MODIFICATIONS:

The following recent laws have been passed to update and strengthen the regulations of expert testimony:

a. Modification to Indian Evidence Act of 2011 Section 45: By highlighting the importance and dependability of expert judgments, this modification made the rules governing their acceptance more clear. It urged judges to take the expert’s credentials and approach into account.

b. The 2020 Expert Evidence Act: The Expert Evidence Act, a more extensive piece of legislation, sought to create a strong framework for the acceptance and management of expert testimony. To further improve the validity of expert testimony, it suggested creating a regulating agency to accredit and certify experts.

CONSTANT DIFFICULTIES AND ISSUES-

Even though there have been recent court decisions and legislative measures that have greatly improved the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony, problems still exist. These include preventing the possible abuse of expert testimony, providing standardized training and certification for experts, and ensuring uniformity in the way the law is applied in various jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION-

The complex relationship between presumption and expert opinion—two important components of the legal system that affect how justice is carried out—has been examined in this research article. Legal shortcuts, and assumptions direct the distribution of burdens of proof and impact the course of decision-making. On the other hand, expert opinions offer specific information and insights that help the fact-finder comprehend difficult situations. The way these two interact will have a significant impact on how the judicial system operates and how justice is served.

Our investigation showed that presumptions have a big influence on whether expert testimony is admissible and how much weight it has in court. Experts may find it simpler to communicate their knowledge with the court if the presumptions of reliability—such as the presumption of regularity and the presumption of credibility—are upheld. On the other hand, the presumption of innocence imposes a significant responsibility on the prosecution, which frequently calls for strong expert testimony to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Expert opinions become vital tools for both the prosecution and the defense in this situation.

We also explored the difficulties and nuances that develop when presumptions and expert judgments collide. Judges, lawyers, and legal scholars must carefully evaluate the possibility of cognitive biases, the over-reliance on expert opinions, and the risk of mistakenly influencing the trier of fact. A fair and just legal process depend on finding the ideal balance between the realities of human judgment and the presumptions of competence.

We also looked at how court decisions and legislative changes have shaped the field of expert evidence and presumptions. The importance of relevance, dependability, and transparency in expert evidence has been highlighted by recent efforts to improve the criteria for admitting and assessing expert opinions. These adjustments show an increasing understanding of the necessity for adaptation.

In summary, there are many different facets and dynamic interactions between assumptions and expert judgments. While assumptions are necessary for the legal system to operate effectively, they must be carefully weighed against expert viewpoints to guarantee that justice is done. The intricacies of this relationship require ongoing consideration by academics, politicians, and legal professionals who want to achieve a balance between the quest of truth and the presumption of competence. The interplay between expert opinions and presumptions will continue to be a crucial area of investigation and growth as the legal landscape develops, pointing the way towards a just and equitable legal system.

REFERENCES-

1. By Douglas Walton and Marcin Koszowy available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26504789
2. By James B Freeman available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10088753/
3. By Petar Bodlovic available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-019-09498-8
4. By E M Delmo Walter and R Hetzer available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484935/
5. Shay Dvoretzky, Jay B. Kasner, Peter B. Morrison, Scott D. Musoff, Noellle M. Reed, Susan L. Saltzstein available at https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2021/06/us-supreme-courts-goldman-decision

---

[1] https://legalupanishad.com/presumptions-the-indian-evidence-act/

[2] Arora, Himanshu, Presumption Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (October 10, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3530459 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530459 visited on 06-11-2023

[3] https://www.lawcolumn.in/presumptions-under-law-of-evidence/

[4] https://www.aaachambers.com/articles/critical-analysis-of-evidential-presumptions-and-its-implication-on-the-burden-of-proof/

[5] https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/03/the-concept-of-opinion-of-expert-and.html

[6] https://lawplanet.in/dr-jacob-mathew-vs-state-of-punjab-case/

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.