Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Opinions of third persons when relevant
Section 45: Opinions of experts
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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. 1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 5 (w.e.f. 13-2-1891). 2. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3 for discussion in Council as to whether “finger impressions” include “thumb impressions” see Gazette of India, 1898, pt.VI, p. 24 (w.e.f. 10-2-1899). 3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 4 (w.e.f. 29-8-1872).
(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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 45
-
Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) determined by the Customs Authorities, which is contested by the appellants. The High Court had concluded…
-
C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated; whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal cover, a copy of the document is admissible.
-
Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case where the trial court relied upon the DNA report, whether the non-examination of the scientific experts involved in the process of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the report, led to the…
-
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether the prosecution has proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed…
-
Yogarani v. State by The Inspector of Police
Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons.
-
Deep Mukerjee v. Sreyashi Banerjee
Matter pertains to subjecting the husband to undergo potentiality test.
- Baharul Islam & Ors. v. The Indian Medical
- Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava
- G H Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others Etc. v. State of Gujarat and Another Etc.
- Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Thr Lrs. & Anr.
- Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya & Anr. v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors.
- S. K. Miglani v. State NCT of Delhi
- Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat
- Sonvir @ Somvir v. The State of NCT of Delhi
- Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala and Others
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. & Anr.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Chand
- B. Raghuvir Acharya v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Safi Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan
- Vipin Jaiswal(A-1) v. State of A.P. Rep.By Pub.Prosecutor
- B.A. Umesh v. Regr.Gen.High Court of Karnataka
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S. Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
- Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of M.P.