confirmed the report clearly and without ambiguity, such report should be taken as evidence. This interpretation can be broadly applied in cases of other digital evidences as well. Expert opinion or report, despite not being the sole conclusive evidence (Single Detrimental Evidence) to establish a fact or event, holds significant weight and is considered as a crucial form of evidence when combined with other evidence, such as witness testimonies or party statements. In addition to being free from dispute, the expertise and proficiency of the expert should ensure that their testimony presented to the court is precise, certain, unambiguous, and unequivocal. Furthermore, when expert opinion is based on conclusions drawn from definite, solid, and scientific arguments and chemical analysis, and when the expert has provided clear and unambiguous testimony and validation of the examination process and findings in court, such a report should be accepted as evidence. vi. Nepal Government versus Urmila Bote27 The audio record made by the deceased in front of a police official that has been testified by the police in the court stating that the recording was done by himself before the death, …, such audio record cannot be regarded not to be fall under the definition of dying declaration. This is an example where an audio record has been taken as an evidence i.e. 'dying declaration' by the court, interpreting that when the source of digital evidence can be confirmed, the cour vii. Bam Bahadur Basnet versus Nepal Government28 Photos, videos, audio recordings, CDs, and other digital materials serve as evidence. Discrediting their authenticity is not permissible. Each piece of evidence is valid. When digital forms such as photos, videos, audio recordings, CDs, etc., are presented as evidence by one party, and the other party does not refute them, they are accepted as written evidence. In case of disputes regarding such evidence, their authenticity becomes subject to examination. Otherwise, modern forms of written evidence should cautiously be accepted. viii. Makhamali Mishra et al versus Laxmi Kumari Mishra (Shrestha)29 In the event of receiving expert report and having affidavit of such expert in court as a witness in regard to authority and accuracy of such report, wherein such report is not seen otherwise by cross NKP 2078, Volume 11, Decision Number 10773) NKP 2070, Volume 6, Decision Number 9022) 29 NKP 2067, volume 10, Decision number 8483 27 28 19