PART II · CHAPTER II RELEVANCY OF FACTS · Opinions of third persons when relevant

Section 39: Opinions of experts

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

(1) When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts.

Illustrations.

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

(2) When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), is a relevant fact.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert.

Corresponding Evidence Act provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

39(1)	45. Opinions of experts.
39(2)	45A. Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.

Leading cases

Questions on this section

6 questions in 29 of our papers cite Section 39. Try these from the free papers:

1. Consider the following statements under the BSA: 1. Where the question is whether A, at the time of an act, was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing its nature, the opinions of experts on whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind are relevant. 2. Where the question is whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain sea-wall, the fact that other similarly situated harbours without such sea-walls began to be obstructed at about the same time is relevant. 3. Facts which support or are inconsistent with the opinion of an expert are relevant only if the expert has been cross-examined on them. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
2. Consider the following statements regarding expert evidence, with reference to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal (1999): 1. An expert is not a witness of fact, and his evidence is of an advisory character. 2. The credibility of an expert's opinion depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions. 3. Holding an official post connected with the subject is by itself enough to make a witness an expert. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
3. Under Section 39(1) of the BSA, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, science, art or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in it are:

Practise questions on Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam