The Supreme Court of Nepal , generally gives preferences to the opinion of expert. It is only sometimes that the court does not consider the Expert Opinion as evidence
In the case of HMG vs. Rajesh K.C. and others,”Semen was found on the clothes of the victim and the person accused of rape. The forensic report was positive during the examination of vaginal swab of the victim; the Supreme Court in this case convicted the accused on the ground of Doctor’s medical report.
Similarly in the case of Sideni Sah Kanu vs.Prabhu Sah Kanu,”the dispute was whether the number ‘0’ had been altered into ‘7’ or not? The expert opined that ‘7’ in the disputed writing and ‘7’in the writing in other places were different .The writing of the disputed number ‘7’was written by different ink, contained plenty of hesitation marks and tremors, and the pen pressure was very thick. The Supreme Court observed that the number ‘7’ was made by altering number ‘o’.
Similarly in the case of Prem Bahdur vs. Ganesh Das,the Supreme Court has observed that the written signature deserves greater importance rather than finger prints impressions if the party executing it seems to be an educated person.
However in the case of Hanif vs.HMG, the Supreme Court rightly held that expert opinion given merely on the ground of inference and not on reliable grounds cannot be relied upon.[NKP,2025(1968),p.94]
Similarly in the case of Milki Ram vs. HMG,the Supreme Court decided that where the doctor is supposed to be , limited to corpse, if doctor gives an opinion on such things that does not conform the condition of dead body , such opinion cannot be relied upon.