The final verdict in the case of Anokhilal v. State of MP created an uproar among the public. A man, who had been sentenced to death twice, was finally acquitted by the Special Court of Khandwa after 11 years based, on the same evidence on record; except, the expert witness was examined in third and final trial. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in an appeal against the decision in the second trial, emphasized that when the courts rely on the expert evidence as the sole basis for conviction, they must take the oral testimony of the expert witness, which ultimately led to his acquittal in the subsequent trial. Various Supreme Court judgements had previously highlighted this principle, but to no avail, as the majority of the courts in India still dispense with the necessity of oral testimony before admitting expert evidence. This paper examines the relevant provisions with respect to the examination of expert witnesses in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, highlighting the lacunae in the Indian law as underscored by Anokhilal vs State of M.P. The paper subsequently draws comparison with the corresponding UK law and recommends similar legislative reforms to the Indian statutes to safeguard the right of the accused to a fair trial.