11.4 Contradiction of Two Expert Opinions

The problem's reality: the competing experts (the prosecution's-and-defence's; the two labs') — the divergent findings (the blood-group-and-DNA disputes; the cause-of-death conflicts; the document's authenticity). The court's resolution (the exam's core): 1. The reasons' comparison (the methodology's-and-basis's weighing — not the credentials' counting). 2. The cross-examination's yield (the weaker opinion's exposure). 3. The corroboration (the other evidence's alignment — the expert not deciding alone). 4. The court's own competence (the judge as the arbiter of the experts — the opinion's non- binding character). 5. The third-expert-and-court-expert faces (the additional opinion's power; the court's own expert's appointment — the procedure's allowance). The prescribed case (cited verbatim; honest note): Government of Nepal v. Maan Kumari Nepali et al. (NKP 2068 B.S., Issue 12, D.No. 8726) — the era's case on the expert evidence's weighing (the contradiction- or-credibility of the scientific opinions — read the report for the precise facts-and-holding).