IEA 45 : Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act:
Opinions of experts.—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 35 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 36 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [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. Comments Conflict of opinion of Experts When there is a conflict of opinion between the experts, then the Court is competent to form its own opinion with regard to signatures on a document; Kishan Chand v. Sita Ram, AIR 2005 P&H 156. Expert opinion admissibility Requirement of expert evidence about test firing to find out whether double barrel gun is in working condition or not, not necessary; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 321. The evidence of a doctor conducting post mortem without producing any authority in support of his opinion is insufficient to grant conviction to an accused; Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr LJ 3699 (SC). Opinion to be received with great caution The opinion of a handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution; Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2200.
37 [ 45A Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. —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;] 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.
India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 45 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J.Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Supreme Court of India
Unknown vs Palakdhari Ilr - Allahabad High Court
State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Supreme Court of India
State (Through Cbi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Patna High Court
Sri Maruthi Processors vs R. Subramaniam on 5 October, 2012 - Madras High Court
Mahmudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 July, 1970 - Calcutta High Court
Pandian vs M.Kamalakannan on 6 December, 2012 - Madras High Court
Basudeo Gir vs State on 24 September, 1958 - Patna High Court
Sundari Alias Esakkiammal vs R.Krishnammal on 5 September, 2011 - Madras High Court
Sundari Alias Esakkiammal vs R.Krishnammal on 5 September, 2011 - Madras High Court
Sushil Agarwal vs Ashok Pareek on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court
Jagdeep Sharma vs Dr. Murari Lal Sharma on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court
Anuj K. Sanghi And Anr vs Pankaj Trivedi on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court
Ram Gopal Agarwal vs Ramesh Kumar Parwal on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court
State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 22 March, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
Kashful Huda vs Additional District Judge on 28 October, 2002 - Allahabad High Court
D. Pandi vs The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited on 16 February, 2001 - Madras High Court
Central Excise Department vs P. Somasundaram on 18 July, 1979 - Karnataka High Court
Chinnasamy vs Dr.D.Rajendran on 13 April, 2010 - Madras High Court
The Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs vs Gopal Singh Visharad - Allahabad High Court
