BSA Section 39: Opinions of third persons when relevant Opinions of experts (formerly IEA 45 and IEA 45A)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · in force from 1 July 2024
BSA 39: Opinions of third persons when relevant Opinions of experts
From 1 July 2024
(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, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert.
What it replaced in the Evidence Act
BSA 39(1) ← IEA 45 · Opinions of expertsChanged
BPR&D's comparison records a change. Read what changed before relying on the old wording.
What changed, per BPR&D: Words "or any other field" are added. Thus, scope is expanded greatly.
Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, 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 in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts.
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.
BSA 39(2) ← IEA 45A · Opinion of Examiner of Electronic EvidenceChanged
BPR&D's comparison records a change. Read what changed before relying on the old wording.
What changed, per BPR&D: Heading is dropped as section is added as a subsection.
Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).
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 section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert.]
Which one applies
Under section 170(2) of the BSA, an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal already pending on 1 July 2024 is dealt with under the Evidence Act; one begun on or after that date, under the BSA.
Read BSA section 170 →Judgments decided under IEA 45
They remain the law on IEA 45. Where the provision changed in the move, read what changed before relying on one for an offence after 1 July 2024.
Sources
- Correspondence Table and Comparison Summary of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, pages 4, 5.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: bare Act with Corresponding Section Table, National Crime Records Bureau (Sankalan), page 13.
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), as amended, India Code, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.
BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.