Question

Expert opinion under Sec.45 is

• A. A conclusive proof
• B. Not a conclusive proof
• C. Supportive and corroborative in nature
• D. None of these

Hint:

Remember that the ultimate "expert" is the court itself. An expert's opinion is only an aid to the court and never a substitute for the court's own judgment. It's a weak form of evidence and must be scrutinized carefully.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the evidentiary value of an expert opinion given under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 45 allows the court to take the opinion of a person specially skilled in fields like foreign law, science, art, or handwriting identification (an "expert"). The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the evidence of an expert is not a substantive piece of evidence and does not constitute conclusive proof.
- The role of the expert is purely advisory. The expert assists the court in reaching a proper conclusion on technical matters.
- The court is not bound by the expert's opinion. The final decision rests with the judge, who must assess the expert's testimony along with all other evidence on record.
- Therefore, expert opinion is considered to be of a supportive and corroborative nature. It can be used to strengthen or contradict other evidence but cannot be the sole basis for a conviction.
Option (B) is also correct, but Option (C) is a more complete and precise description of the legal status of expert evidence. It is not only "not conclusive" but also serves a specific purpose, which is to support and corroborate.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Expert opinion under Sec.45 is Supportive and corroborative in nature.

Answer 2

The question asks how much evidentiary weight an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act actually carries, so each option should be checked against how courts treat expert testimony in practice.

1. A conclusive proof: Courts have consistently held that expert opinion is only advisory in character; the judge remains free to accept, reject or weigh it against other evidence, and is never bound to follow it merely because an expert has given an opinion. Treating it as conclusive would improperly hand over the court's own fact-finding function to the witness.
2. Not a conclusive proof: This is true as far as it goes, since expert opinion is indeed not binding on the court, but it only states what expert evidence is not, without describing what role it actually plays. Left on its own, it is an incomplete answer to how such evidence should be used.
3. Supportive and corroborative in nature: Expert opinion exists to assist the court on technical matters, such as handwriting, chemical analysis or foreign law, that fall outside a judge's own expertise, and it functions to reinforce or explain other evidence on record rather than to stand alone as decisive proof. This captures both the limitation (it is not conclusive by itself) and the constructive role it does play, making it the fuller and more accurate description.
4. None of these: Since option (C) accurately captures the settled legal position, this residual option cannot be right.

Because expert opinion is neither binding nor irrelevant, but instead reinforces the rest of the evidence, the description that captures both aspects is the correct one.

Therefore, the correct answer is Supportive and corroborative in nature.