Abstract:
This study conducts a comprehensive comparative analysis of the legal frameworks and
jurisprudence governing the admission of expert testimony in criminal trials in India and
Bangladesh. Expert opinions play an important role in establishing facts, interpreting complex
evidence and influencing legal decisions. The purpose of this study is to identify similarities and
differences in national approaches, shedding light on legal nuances and potential areas for
improvement.
Preliminary findings indicate that, while both India and Bangladesh recognize the importance of
expert testimony, there are differences in the legal standards for admissibility and the weight
given to such evidence. The study reveals issues concerning expert witnesses' qualifications and
impartiality, the scope of their opinions, and the potential misuse of scientific evidence. The
research also examines the role of expert witnesses in shaping the perceptions of judges and
juries, as well as the influence of cultural and contextual factors on the reception of expert
testimony.
The comparative study adds to the existing literature by providing insights into the strengths and
weaknesses of both countries' current legal frameworks. Recommendations for reforms and
practice harmonization are made in order to improve the reliability and fairness of expert
testimony in criminal proceedings. Finally, the study hopes to educate legal practitioners,
policymakers, and academics about the changing landscape of expert testimony in criminal
cases in India and Bangladesh, allowing for the development of more robust and equitable legal
systems.
