Balancing Science And Justice: A Multijurisdictional Analysis Of Expert Evidence In Criminal Trials
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 14, 2025
- 2 min read
Jenimettilda J, Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University
ABSTRACT
Expert evidence has become central to modern adjudication, particularly in cases involving forensic science, medical negligence, complex financial transactions and digital evidence. Yet courts remain cautious: expert opinion is formally “assistance” to the judge or jury, not a substitute for judicial reasoning. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of how courts in India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia and France appreciate (i.e., admit, assess and weigh) expert evidence. In India, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now largely replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) treats expert opinion as relevant but essentially advisory, with the Supreme Court insisting on corroboration and rigorous scrutiny of the expert’s methodology. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as shaped by Daubert, Joiner and Kumho Tire create an explicit “gatekeeping” role for judges, focusing on reliability and relevance. The United Kingdom relies on common-law tests (for example R v Turner) supplemented by the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, which emphasise objectivity, independence and assistance to the court. In Russia and France, expert evidence is integrated into an inquisitorial procedural framework: expert reports are often court-ordered and treated as an independent source of proof under the respective Codes of Criminal Procedure, with detailed regulation of appointment, duties and remuneration of experts. By contrasting these systems, the article argues that India’s evolving framework particularly after the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 would benefit from a more structured reliability test similar to Daubert, clearer ethical and procedural guidance for experts, and stronger judicial training on scientific reasoning.
Keywords: Expert evidence, Daubert, Criminal Procedure, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, expert judiciaire, forensic science, comparative evidence law.
