Evidence Law Case: Keshav Prasad Ghimire v. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, NKP (2036), No. 4, P. 108, DN: 1255
Case: Forged check and money laundering
Plaintiff: HMG
Defendant: Keshav Prasad Ghimire
Decision no: 1255
This case is related to, “Expert Opinion”
Fact of the case:
Mr. Keshav Prasad Ghimire was accused of doing fake signature of Beti Bahadur and Ram Chandra on the artificial cheque in the name of Krishna prasad Shrestha and use the money for himself.
According to the expert’s opinion, the date number and scripts written on the cheque belong to Keshav Prasad, so action should be taken against him under section 7(1) and sections of the Elimination of Corruption Act, 2017.
According to police department the accused confessed about his crime and expert verified that the handwriting match with Mr. Keshav Prasad Ghimire.
Bagmati Special Court:
The decision of the Bagmati Special Court on 2037/3/7 states that defendant Keshav Prasad intentionally withdraw money from the cheque for his benefit and harmed the fame of the smallpox elimination project office. Defendant appeals in Zonal court regarding the decision of the district court.
Central Regional Court:
Defendant Keshav Prasad’s statement to the special police proved that he had confessed that he had swindled(defrauded) the cheque and withdraw the money from the bank. The data and scripts matches the handwriting of the defendant said by the experts.
So, the appellate court also approved the decision of the Bagmati District Court. At first instance he accept that he withdrawal the amount by fake signature after that he was taken to custody and while he was presented at court then he told that police forcefully wrote my statement so the nature of the defendant change time to time, so statement cannot be taken as evidence.
The expert opinion has also taken as evidence in this case but the court has not distinguish that he is really the expert or not ? but it can be accepted according to the Evidence Act, 2031, Sec 23(7).[Expert must present before the court]
Supreme Court:
In 2033/03/07, file a case, Special Court accept the evidence and gave the decision also in the same day, so the decision was not given considering the rules of the Evidence Act, 2031.
The opinion of the experts has been taken as the evidence but procedure was completely Contradictory with the sub-section 7 of the section 23 of the Evidence Act, 2031.
Sec 23(7): Any opinion may be taken as evidence only if he/she appears before the court in person as a witness.
Therefore, since the Bagmati Special Court and the Central Regional Court have decided on the basis of their own evidence which should not be accepted as per the law, the restrictive phrase of Section 54 of the Evidence Act, 2031 declares the decision invalid.
