Under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the opinion of an expert is relevant when the court has to form an opinion on matters that require specialized knowledge. This is essential in cases involving complex technical or scientific issues which are beyond the common understanding of judges.
Definition of Expert Opinion under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
The relevant provision is Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which corresponds to Section 45 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 39 – Opinions of Experts
Section 39 of the BSA states:
“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 especially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts.”
These persons are referred to as “experts”.
Explanation of Terms:
- “Science or art” includes all branches of knowledge that require special study, including modern disciplines like digital forensics, medical science, ballistics, etc.
- “Expert” means someone with specialized knowledge, training, or experience in a particular field relevant to the matter in dispute.
Key Elements of Expert Opinion:
- Relevance: The opinion must relate to a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
- Field of Expertise: The person must be qualified in the specific domain (science, art, law, handwriting, fingerprints, etc.).
- Assistance to the Court: The expert’s role is advisory—the court is not bound to accept the opinion blindly.
Example:
- In a murder trial, if the weapon used is a firearm, a ballistic expert’s opinion on the trajectory of the bullet and whether the bullet matches the gun used would be considered relevant under Section 39.
- In a cybercrime case, a digital forensic expert’s opinion on whether a particular digital signature or file was tampered with would also fall under this section.
Important Judicial Observations:
- The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that expert evidence is only advisory and must be corroborated with other evidence. (e.g., State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3318)
- The value of expert opinion depends on the credibility of the expert, methodology adopted, and consistency with established principles.
Modern Implication under BSA:
The BSA, while retaining the core idea from the Indian Evidence Act, expands the scope to include modern fields such as:
- DNA analysis
- Electronic evidence (linked with digital forensic experts)
- Cybersecurity
- Artificial Intelligence in some contexts (e.g., facial recognition analysis)
Caution:
The court exercises caution in accepting expert opinions, especially if:
- The expert lacks proper credentials.
- The opinion is inconsistent with other direct or circumstantial evidence.
- The expert is biased or has not followed a reliable methodology.
Related Sections:
- Section 40 – Facts bearing upon opinions of experts (akin to Section 45A of IEA)
- Section 63 – Opinions as to handwriting (formerly Section 47)
- Section 64 – Opinion on digital signature verification (replacing Section 47A)
