BSA Section 39 — Opinions of experts

CHAPTER II RELEVANCY OF FACTS — Judgments of Courts when relevant

General

Summary

Sub-section (1) states that when a court needs to form an opinion on a point involving foreign law, science, art, any other field, or the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions of people who are specially skilled in that area are considered relevant facts. Such people are called experts.

Under illustration (a), if the question is whether a person's death was caused by poison, the opinions of experts about the symptoms produced by that poison are relevant.

Under illustration (b), if the question is whether a person, at the time of doing a certain act, was incapable by reason of unsoundness of mind of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the opinions of experts on whether the symptoms shown by that person commonly indicate unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness usually makes people incapable of knowing the nature of their acts or that such acts are wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

Under illustration (c), if the question is whether a certain document was written by a particular person, and another document is produced that is proved or admitted to have been written by that person, the opinions of experts on whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons are relevant.

Sub-section (2) states that when a court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to 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, is a relevant fact.

The explanation clarifies that, for the purposes of sub-section (2), an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be considered an expert.

Official Text

(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.

Sections referred to

Old <-> New Code Mapping