In the natural course of evidence law, evidence is gathered based on statements noted from the witness which he gives from his understanding or conviction. But an exception to this general rule is given under sections 45-51 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Chapter II of the act, focus on the fact that in certain circumstances, to understand the case intricately, opinion of an expert becomes indispensable. This is because, a case may involve something extremely technical in nature whose essence the Court may not grasp by itself.

The areas of focus as per Sec. 45 are foreign laws, topics based on scientific principles/facts, artworks, handwriting and fingerprints. Nevertheless, if there is a discrepancy between the testimony of an expert witness and an eye witness, then the latter’s testimony reigns supreme. But, if it’s completely poles apart from the expert witness’s testimony, then the reliability of the eye witness is deliberated by the Court.

In cases, where the potency of a spouse is in dispute, the Court generally requests for a medical expert’s opinion. This is seen in the case of Amol Chauhan v. Jyoti Chauhan.[1]

With the advent of computer related technology, an opinion from an expert in this field becomes necessary. Hence, to meet this requirement, Sec 45 A of the Act put forth the ‘opinion of expert with regard to electronic evidence[2]’.

According to sec 46, anything which acts as a contrivance to either prove or disprove the opinion given by an expert is considered germane by the Court even if it in itself has no connection with the case at hand.

As per Sec 47, the opinion of a person who is accustomed to the handwriting of a person related to the case is considered relevant. He is to determine whether the handwriting of the person in question is actually his or not. This was seen in the case of State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Pathi[3] wherein the employer was found proficient by the Court to give evidence regarding the employee’s handwriting.

According to sec 47A, the opinion of a certifying authority becomes relevant when the object under the scanner is an electronic certificate.

Sec 48 talks about customs, practices and related rights. In such a situation, the Court considers relevant the opinion of person/s who is conversant with the existence of such a custom that is acceptable and practiced by a broad-spectrum of people.

According to Sec 49, the people who have a special knowledge about usage doctrines as in the make-up of any religious congregation, family or specific class of people is considered of adequate relevance.

Sec 50 deals with relation between two persons. In such a case, the opinion of a person who is close enough to them to form an opinion about their relationship is considered relevant. In Bami Bewa v. Krushna Chandra Swain[4], the evidence given by cousin of adoptive father was considered relevant to confirm the validity of relation with adopted son.

According to sec 51, the experiments or steps of the expert which brought him to give the opinion are considered relevant by the Court.

Hence, in cases where the knowledge of the Court is limited, these sections under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unlocks a vista by allowing opinions given by experts to reach out to the ultimate goal of the abode of justice – ‘to obtain truth’.

By

Madhuparna Ray, INBA Intern

[1] 2012 MP 61

[2] INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT § 45A

[3] AIR 1967 SC 778

[4] AIR 2004 Ori 14