Section 39 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Opinions of experts

Section 39 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Opinions of experts

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c) Fact Sec 2(1)(d)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 39

Section 39 governs the admissibility of expert opinion in scientific, forensic, digital, medical, and technical inquiries.

Digital Infrastructure Jurisdiction: Section 39 (formerly Section 45 IEA) provides that 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, finger impressions, or digital forensics, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such field are relevant facts.
Core Legal Standard: Under Section 39 of the BSA, persons specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or digital evidence are designated as experts, and their stated opinions constitute relevant evidentiary facts.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 709: Held that an expert is not a witness of fact; expert opinion is advisory and corroborative in nature and must be supported by scientific reasoning.
State of H.P. v. Jai Lal (1999) 7 SCC 280: Held that an expert must demonstrate that they have acquired special study, training, or practical experience in the relevant discipline before their opinion can be received.

Legal Commentary:

Section 39 enables courts to decipher complex medical autopsies, DNA profiling, ballistics, handwriting comparisons, and digital forensic reports. While an expert's testimony is advisory rather than conclusive, a well-reasoned forensic report carrying objective scientific backing frequently decides criminal culpability.