examination, the court shall not invalidate such scientific examination report on legal grounds. Moreover, as per Section 23(7) of the Evidence Act, 2031, the court shall accept the opinion of an expert as evidence that has not otherwise been observed during cross examination. This case underlines that the evidence of DNA test report which has been testified by the expert who did the test before the court, should be considered valid. The court uses the term 'scientific examination report' to indicate the DNA test report, and this phrase can be widely interpreted to included other scientific data which can be submitted before the court as evidence. ix. Ashokram Mahara versus Choteylal Ram30 Expert opinion should certainly assist the judge in reaching a conclusion. However, considering the expert opinion as the only definitive evidence and disregarding other evidence is not justifiable. If the expert opinion is in contradiction to other reliable evidence, the judge may deduce the conclusion against the expert opinion. x. Ram Bahadur Basnet versus Nepal Government31 Expert opinion that does not align with the attached evidence or facts should not be considered as valid evidence. Disregarding other evidence in the case file and compelling the judge to accept the expert opinion as mandatory undermines the judge's discretion. In technical matters, the expertise of a specialist in a relevant subject is not easily dismissed. However, if the expert's opinion diverges significantly from the evidence and established facts of the case, causing reasonable doubt, such opinion be rejected. Ignoring the relevant legal provisions or misinterpreting them should not serve as a basis to include the expert opinion as evidence. The cases mentioned present a comprehensive view of the legal landscape in Nepal, highlighting several crucial aspects of judicial proceedings and legal principles. Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on protecting individual rights and privacy. These cases underscore the importance of conducting investigations within the boundaries of the law and respecting privacy rights, even in the face of crime prevention and detection. Similarly, the Supreme Court's proactive approach to addressing issues of privacy and data protection of the alleged parties during the investigation process. Through its 30 31 NKP 2068, Volume 3, Decision Number 8582) NKP 2065, volume 7, Decision Number 7985 20