A Study on the Role of Expert opinion Under the criminal trial of the court of Magistracy in Bangladesh

ABSTRACT

Although the expert opinion system is contrasted with the inquisitorial system, the latter in fact also enshrines in law the right of the accused to oppose the evidence of the prosecution and introduce evidence to prove innocence; it is thus ‘contradictoire’ (to use the French term) or expert opinion in that sense. It is rather the structure and organisation of the forensic process or investigative method, than the expert opinion nature of proceedings, that distinguishes the two systems.¹ In an expert opinion system, the parties, acting independently and in a partisan fashion, are responsible for uncovering and presenting evidence before a passive and neutral trial judge or jury. In an inquisitorial system, the ultimate responsibility for finding the truth lies with an official body that acts with judicial authority, and gathers evidence both for and against the accused. Whereas the actors in an expert opinion system are equal and opposing parties, in an inquisitorial system the accused is thus not a party to proceedings to the same extent.

The theoretical distinctions between inquisitorial and expert opinion jurisdictions (primarily concerning party prosecution and presentation, judicial activism, and different fact-finding methods) translate into systems that operate quite distinctly at the practical level as well. The inquisitorial system is thus a useful reference point with a view to reform in Western Australia. Much of the criticism levelled at the expert opinion system is centred precisely on the autonomous role of the accused as a party, and proposals have been put forward for greater judicial control over the actions of both parties before and during the trial.² Indeed, there have even been calls for the adoption of an inquisitorial model in Australian states.³ A closer analysis of inquisitorial models facilitates a measured response to such calls, and to the various claims.  some more justifiable than others — that are made on behalf of inquisitorial models; it permits realistic identification of ‘transportable’ elements. The main inquisitorial jurisdictions that are taken into account are France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. The most general common characteristics of inquisitorial systems are referred to, and detailed points of difference are only mentioned where it is relevant to do so.⁴ This is done in full realisation of the fact that there are important differences between civilian jurisdictions in the area of criminal proceedings.

TABLE OF CONTENT

DESCRIPTIONS	Page No.
CHAPTER-01, Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Statement of Research Monograph
1.3 Research Question
1.4 Objective of the Study
1.5 Justification
1.6 Bangladesh at a Glance
1.7 Methodology of the study
1.8 Limitation of the work
Chapter-02, Literature Review
2.1 Definitions
2.2 History
2.3 Basic features
2.4 Who is an expert?
2.5 Expert as a witness:
CHAPTER-03, Evidentiary Value Of Expert Opinion Under Bangladesh Evidence Act
3.1 The Cases in which Expert Evidence can be Admitted:
3.2 Expert Evidence in Bangladesh Evidence Act:
CHAPTER-04, DEFECTS OF TRIAL
4.1 Heard matters of the Tribunal
4.2 Prosecution’s Reply
4.3 Argument regarding Defective Law
4.4 Argument regarding Defective Charges
4.5 Arguments regarding Chain of Command          4.6 Arguments regarding Lack of Evidence
4.7 Reply of the Defense
CHAPTER-05 Expert’s Opinion and its admissibility & relevancy: An Analysis
5.1 View of Law of Evidence
5.2 Value of expert opinion
5.3 Difference between evidence of an expert and evidence of an ordinary witness
5.4 Medical opinion
5.5 Handwriting
5.6 Fingerprint expert
5.7 Ballistic expert:- 5.8 Evidence of tracking dogs
5.9 Investigating officer and expert opinion
CHAPTER-06 Problems or Obstacle to the Expert opinion under the criminal trial of the court of magistracy justice system of Bangladesh
CHAPTER-07, Suggestions
Conclusion
Bibliography