SURINDER KAUR Vs. BADAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the dismissal of the application for sending the document to a thumb-impression expert for comparison of thumb-impression on the disputed document with specimen thumb-impression taken in Court. It appears that the plaintiff had examined a thumb-impression expert at the ex parte stage and the same thumb-impression expert was examined after de novo trial was ordered. In the course of examination of the witness, it was sought to be elicited from the witness whether he had not taken a second opinion on the thumb-impression from any other person, particularly in view of the fact that he had already given a report and he was again giving a report by taking fresh specimen thumb-impression. This cross-examination, according to the plaintiff, amounted to casting an aspersion on his objective appraisal and, therefore, felt constrained to move an application for sending the document to the forensic lab, established by the State, for securing an opinion of the thumb-impression expert. The trial Court rejected the prayer on an observation that there had been already on record a thumb-impression expert opinion and it was unnecessary to have the same task replicated through another report. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would fault this reasoning by contending that a witness, who is brought by a party, is believed to normally support the party, who summons him and, therefore, to secure an unbiased objective report, a forensic expert from the Government lab be examined. Thumb-impression science is more exact than an opinion secured from a handwriting expert. It ought to be immaterial that a person, who has given a report, is a private expert brought at the instance of the plaintiff as his witness. By examining a Government expert, in my view, it would not enhance the quality of the report. A report has to be supported by what it contains and what is sought to be elicited in the examination in Court. The strength of a report will therefore determine in its own intrinsic value and cannot depend on whether the person is a freelance expert or an expert appointed by the Government. The rejection of the request by the trial Court in the course of trial, I would hold, to be justified and see no reason for interference in revision.

(2.) The impugned order is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed.