Expert Testimony Under Bsa
🧾 I. Introduction: Who is an Expert?
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), an expert is a person specially skilled in science, art, handwriting, fingerprints, foreign law, medical field, digital forensics, etc.
Expert testimony is opinion evidence, which is usually inadmissible in law, except when it comes from someone who is considered an expert under law.
📘 II. Relevant Provision under BSA (Equivalent to Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act)
Section 39 of BSA, 2023 – Opinions of Experts
This section states that:
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting or finger impression, the opinions of persons specially skilled in those fields are relevant facts.
So, expert testimony becomes relevant and admissible to assist the court in forming an opinion on technical matters.
📌 III. Characteristics of Expert Testimony
Advisory in nature – not binding on the court.
Must be based on recognized principles and methods.
Must be corroborated, where possible, by other evidence.
The court can accept or reject the opinion.
Must be from a person with recognized qualifications or experience.
⚖️ IV. Landmark Case Laws on Expert Testimony
Here are six detailed case laws that explain how courts have dealt with expert testimony:
1. State of H.P. v. Jai Lal (1999) 7 SCC 280
Facts:
Dispute involving an expert’s opinion on the cause of a fire. The accused challenged the validity of the expert opinion.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that expert opinion must be supported by logic and reasoning, not merely conclusions. The court must ensure the expert’s opinion is based on reliable methods, and is not just guesswork.
Significance:
Court emphasized that blind reliance on expert opinion is not allowed; it must pass the test of credibility and coherence.
2. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital (2009) 9 SCC 709
Facts:
This case involved alleged medical negligence, and expert medical opinions were produced.
Held:
The Court held that expert testimony must be based on established medical principles, and not merely on personal judgment. The court also clarified that cross-examination is crucial to test the credibility of an expert.
Significance:
Reinforced that expert opinion cannot override facts and must be consistent with standard medical practices.
3. Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727
Facts:
Handwriting expert’s opinion was the only evidence against the accused.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that handwriting expert opinion alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence.
Significance:
Established that expert testimony is only corroborative, not conclusive.
4. Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178
Facts:
Case involved reliance on digital evidence and forensic reports in a murder trial.
Held:
The Court highlighted the increasing role of electronic and digital forensic experts under modern criminal trials. It ruled that proper chain of custody, authenticity, and reliability must be established before relying on such expert reports.
Significance:
Brought attention to the admissibility of modern scientific techniques and the need for procedure in handling forensic evidence.
5. Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091
Facts:
Conviction was based primarily on the opinion of a handwriting expert.
Held:
The Supreme Court was cautious in accepting the opinion and stated that expert opinion can be fallible, and the court must seek corroboration.
Significance:
This case is often quoted to show the fallibility of expert testimony.
6. Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab (2003) 11 SCC 367
Facts:
The case relied heavily on the opinion of a fingerprint expert to link the accused to the crime.
Held:
The Supreme Court accepted the fingerprint expert’s opinion since it was clear, unambiguous, and scientifically supported, and it was not contradicted by any other evidence.
Significance:
Demonstrated that if expert opinion is clear, credible, and scientifically reliable, it can be sufficient to support conviction.
📚 V. Types of Experts Recognized under BSA
| Expert Type | Field |
|---|---|
| Medical Expert | Injury, cause of death, poisoning |
| Forensic Expert | DNA, blood samples, hair, semen, etc. |
| Handwriting Expert | Signature verification, document forgery |
| Fingerprint Expert | Matching prints at crime scenes |
| Ballistics Expert | Gunshot wounds, bullet matching |
| Digital Forensics Expert | Cybercrimes, data recovery |
🧩 VI. Limitations of Expert Testimony
Not conclusive: Needs corroboration.
Can be biased if paid by one party.
May be contradicted by another expert.
Court is not bound to accept it.
Must be logically reasoned and demonstrable.
🧾 VII. Conclusion
Expert testimony under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam plays a crucial role in cases involving technical or scientific issues. However, courts have consistently held that expert opinions are only advisory, and cannot replace judicial scrutiny. The credibility, consistency, and corroboration of the expert’s opinion determine its weight in the trial.
✅ Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Expert Area | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of H.P. v. Jai Lal | Fire/Forensics | Expert opinion must be reasoned and reliable |
| Ramesh C. Agrawal v. Regency Hospital | Medical Negligence | Medical expert must follow established norms |
| Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab | Handwriting | Handwriting expert needs corroboration |
| Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. | Digital Forensics | Digital evidence must follow chain of custody |
| Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab | Handwriting | Expert opinion can be fallible |
| Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab | Fingerprint | Expert evidence can be conclusive if reliable and unchallenged |
RELATED Blog
0 comments