Expert Opinion And Relevancy under BSA
(Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
Bachelor of law
LAW OF EVIDENCE(BSA)
SUBMITTED BY
VISHAL PANWAR
LLB (HONS.), THIRD SEMESTER, SECTION A
SCHOLAR NO. 11111302204
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
PROF. JALAJ SARMANDAL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, PRESTIGE INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, INDORE
List Of Abbreviation
01 BSA Bhartiya Sakshya Ddhiniyam
02 S Section
03 CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
04 IPC Indian Penal Code
05 SC Supreme Court
06 HCA High Court of Appeal
List Of Cases
1. R v. Turner (1975)
2. State of U.P. v. Dr. B.C. Roy (1962)
3. T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (1996)
4. K.K. Verma v. State of Delhi (2015)
5. R v. S. (1988)
List of Statutes
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Sections 39 to 45
BHARTATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 - Sections dealing with offenses
requiring expert testimony
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,2023– Section 351 (Examination of accused)
Contents
List Of Abbreviation.................................................................................................... 2
List Of Cases............................................................................................................... 3
List of Statutes........................................................................................................... 4
Introduction................................................................................................................ 7
Legal Framework of Expert Opinion............................................................................7
A. Statutory Provisions............................................................................................ 7
B. The Role of the Court.......................................................................................... 8
C. Qualifications of an Expert.................................................................................. 8
Academic Qualifications:......................................................................................... 8
Practical Experience:............................................................................................... 8
Admissibility of Expert Opinion................................................................................... 9
A.General Rule of Admissibility................................................................................9
B. Admissibility Requirements................................................................................. 9
Types of Expert Testimonies..................................................................................... 11
A. Scientific/Technical Expert Opinions................................................................11
B. Professional Expert Testimony.........................................................................11
C. Opinion Based on Personal Experience.............................................................12
Weight and Credibility of Expert Opinion..................................................................13
A. Factors That Influence the Weight of Expert Testimony..................................13
B. Expert's Cross-Examination...............................................................................14
Case Law and Judicial Precedents.............................................................................15
R v. Turner (1975):................................................................................................. 15
State of U.P. v. Dr. B.C. Roy (1962):.......................................................................15
T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (1996):....................................................................15
Challenges to Expert Opinions.................................................................................. 16
A. Bias and Conflict of Interest..............................................................................16
B. Conflict Between Experts.................................................................................. 16
C. Limitations of Expert Testimony........................................................................17
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 18
Bibliography............................................................................................................. 19
Introduction
The Law of Evidence is one of the elements playing a central role in judicial processes, where
the evidence presented needs to be pertinent, credible, and admissible. One very important aspect
of evidence law is use of expert opinions, relied upon to provide those specialized areas of
knowledge that lie beyond common understanding of an average person. Expert testimony is
mostly accepted when it would enable the court to understand some complicated facts which lie
outside ordinary knowledge. This paper outlines the issue of expert opinions, admissibility,
requirements before acceptance, and the usefulness thereof to the judicial process.
Legal Framework of Expert Opinion
A. Statutory Provisions
The admissibility of evidence, including those based on expert opinion is governed by the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The appropriate sections in the said Act regarding expert
evidence in court are as follows:
Section 39 of BSA - Opinions of Third Persons When Relevant:
This section establishes that when the court needs to form an opinion on matters like foreign law,
science, art, identity verification, or handwriting and finger impressions, the opinions of
individuals specially skilled in those respective fields are considered relevant.
Section 40 of BSA- Facts Supporting or Inconsistent with Expert Opinions:
Section 40 asserts that facts, not otherwise relevant, gain relevance if they support or contradict
expert opinions. For instance, in cases of poisoning, the symptoms exhibited by other individuals
poisoned by the same substance become relevant, which would be the helpful in affirming or
denying those symptoms.
Section 41 of BSA - Opinion as to Handwriting and Signature:
This section specifies that when the court needs to form an opinion on the person by whom any
document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of
the supposed writer or signer is relevant. Acquaintance, as defined in the explanation, includes
having seen the person write, receiving documents written by them, or being exposed to
documents purportedly written by them in the ordinary course of business.
Both these provisions put together ensure that expert testimony can be admitted only if it is
relevant to the case and is based on facts and is within the area of expertise of the expert.
B. The Role of the Court
Expert witnesses provide specialized knowledge, but the judge retains responsibility to evaluate
its value and credibility. The judge does not inherently accept expert opinions, but instead
measures:
Trustworthiness of the Expert: Whether the expert is actually qualified and whether the
professional reputation and experience contribute to the reliability of his opinion.
Validity of Methods: Whether the methods employed by the expert are
scientifically/professionally sound is included in this aspect. This would mean if a medical expert
uses outdated methods, or a forensic expert uses techniques, though correctly applied, are not up
to current standards. The court may then not give importance to the opinion of that particular
expert.
Weight of Testimony: the court decides how much weight is given to the testimony by the expert
witness. An expert opinion is put together with other evidence, and the judge or jury decides how
much value to give it.
In short, in other words, though expert opinions are crucial in explaining specialized facts, the
court has to determine whether such opinions are strong enough to be relied on for the decision.
C. Qualifications of an Expert
An expert witness needs to be qualified to make him reliable in court. These qualifications may
include:
Academic Qualifications: These are degrees, diplomas, and certifications from recognized
institutions that help the person profess excellence in a particular field. For instance, a medical
degree for a doctor, a law degree for a legal expert, etc.
Practical Experience: At times, just academic qualifications are not enough. Practical
experience is very essential for this is where the expert has actual knowledge in the field. Take an
instance, for one to prove more authentic, they will be an experienced engineer rather than a
fresh graduate of the same field.1
An expert should be able to show that they have superior knowledge in the relevant area of study.
Their value of testimony will therefore depend on their ability to explain matters beyond the
common understanding of the court. It is through this specialized knowledge that allows the
expert to assist the court to come to an informed judgment.
Admissibility of Expert Opinion
A.General Rule of Admissibility
Indian law treats expert opinions as an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.
Hearsay evidence is where one comes to testify on information received by him from someone
else but he neither saw or perceived the fact. This is generally barred because it is considered
unreliable. However, for the reasons that follow, expert opinions form an exception to that
general rule.
Specialized Knowledge: A specialist is an expert who has special knowledge or experience in a
particular area. Experts are different from general witnesses because they provide opinions based
on the same kind of knowledge or experience that they possess as experts within areas of
complexity or beyond common understanding for a layperson-for example, medical condition,
forensic analysis, or technical matters.
Section 45 of the Evidence Act: An expert's opinion is permissible only if it is an opinion that
can be based upon any specialized knowledge that may aid the court in making its judgment
regarding facts involving such specialized knowledge. For instance, if a criminal case is being
preferred, depending on DNA evidence, it would be permissible to allow the opinion of an expert
for interpretation because the common man does not know what genetics is.
Accordingly, expert testimony is admissible in court whenever an issue of expert knowledge is at
issue-a case usually involving matters complex enough that the court cannot properly understand
without such guidance.
B. Admissibility Requirements
For an expert's opinion to be admissible in court, it must meet the following basic requirements:
1
T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (1996).
Knowledge Accepted in a Field:
The opinion of an expert must be based on highly technical knowledge more elevated than what
a general person possesses.2 Such knowledge might be technical, scientific, medical, or any other
form of field where some level of expertise is required to conceive a perception or a judgment of
the subject matter.
They should be in a position to demonstrate knowledge and experience in that field to explain
complex issues within the court of law, whose opinion will actually help the court understand
such complicated matters. An example would be in a medical malpractice case, which means a
neurologist would have to explain what the effects of the brain injury were.
Relevance:
The opinion of the expert must be relevant to the issues of controversy in the case. Actual
disputed questions in the trail should be answered by it.
Even expert opinions, no matter the subject they are based upon, will not be allowed unless such
have relevance to the fact in issue. For example, in the case of fraud financial, an expert on law
or ethics will not help very much unless it has direct relevance to the financial misconduct
involved.
Factual Basis:
An opinion by an expert should be evidence-based. These evidences may either be derived from
the case presented or as a result of an examination or study by the expert himself on the subject
matter in question.
Factual foundation is that the opinion by an expert shall not be hypothetical or speculative. The
opinion must be founded on actual facts and observations or research. For example, an opinion
by a forensic expert regarding the cause of death should be founded on physical evidence such as
the outcome of an autopsy and toxicology report and not based on guess or assumption.
Summary: Expert evidence in Indian courts is admitted subject to specific conditions being
satisfied so as to add value and relevance. The opinion of the expert must also satisfy a certain
2
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
criteria:Should be derived from specialized knowledge.These should be relevant to the issues in
dispute
These have to be fact-based rather than speculative. Under such conditions, expert opinions
might prove indispensable for solving complex legal problems to deliver a more just and
informed judicial process.
Types of Expert Testimonies
Other testimonies that are valuable in the legal process include expert opinions. These are
testimonies that will give the court insight into matters that prove to be special or complex for
the court to understand.3 Depending on the specialty of the expertise, it has been divided into
three main categories:
A. Scientific/Technical Expert Opinions
This is testimony given by experts who come from a scientific or technical background to make
sense of complex facts founded in scientific method or technical analysis. These experts often
specialize in areas that require such great scientific accuracy.
Who are they? Some examples are forensic scientists, medical doctors, DNA analysts,
toxicologists, and even digital forensics specialists.
Role in Court: They assist the court in objectifying data driven insights. For example:
DNA evidence at the crime scene may be used by a forensic expert to link or eliminate suspects.
A medical practitioner may give his opinion on the cause of death after an autopsy.
A digital forensic examiner may carry out a forensic analysis of electronic data, or retrieve
information from digital devices to verify evidence, most notably in cybercrime investigations.
These experts provide technical expertise that makes the court explain science or technology
beyond the everyday experience of a judge or jury.
3
R v. Turner (1975)
B. Professional Expert Testimony
A professional expert is an individual who, because of special education, training, or experience,
possesses superior knowledge within a particular field of professional activity. This person can
give educated opinions based on the rules and practices in his or her profession.
Who are they? Examples of professional experts include accountants, engineers, architects, and
financial analysts.
Role in Court: Their role is to explain confusing professional standards or procedures that are
applicable to the case. For instance;
An architect would narrate the structural integrity of a building in cases involving construction
defects or building collapses.
An accountant, in analysing financial records, would testify on the issues of fraud, financial
discrepancies, or valuation in a case on business dispute.
An engineer might be able to shed light on the series of events or technical mechanisms
regarding equipment or infrastructure that would make it clear as to why or how a structural
failure happened.4
Experts opinions by individuals can specifically be helpful where industry standards,
compliance, and technical procedure apply to the outcome determinant.
C. Opinion Based on Personal Experience
This testimony rests on the expert's personal experience and knowledge that he/she has
developed through observation rather than strict scientific or professional qualifications. Such
experts usually acquire their insights as a result of years of experience and direct work in certain
fields.
Who are they? Criminologists, psychologists, sociologists, and social workers are a few
examples.
Role in Court: They come to provide insight drawn from very wide experience and observation
in their field. For instance:
4
Singh, A. (2015). Principles of Law of Evidence. 10th ed.
A criminologist may provide the court with expert opinion over criminal behavior patterns,
which may indicate to the court what could have motivated a defendant or what they are likely to
do.
A psychologist can give the court expert opinion regarding the mental state of the defendant, and
if any mental conditions affected the acts of the defendant
A sociologist can give social behaviors or cultural factors that may be involved in the case.
Experts offer more interpretive opinions that are more observational, so they are useful when
there is a need for behavioral or experiential knowledge.
Weight and Credibility of Expert Opinion
The impact of any expert testimony within a court always depends on the extent to which the
opinion therein has credibility and reliability.5 Expert testimonies are examined carefully by
courts to ensure that they not only allow experts' opinions to be relied upon in them but are also
trustworthy, objective, and based on sound methods and reasoning.
A. Factors That Influence the Weight of Expert Testimony
Many factors influence the weight the court assigns to an expert's testimony:
Credibility of the Expert:
An expert's credibility is, therefore, heavily determined by qualifications, experience, and
reputation in a particular field. It is more probable that a man with huge qualifications and years
of experience and reputation in his profession be highly credible than the one who has very
minimum credentials or working experience in his profession.
For instance, the opinion of a veteran forensic expert with numerous publications in peer-
reviewed journals related to his or her area of specialization will carry greater weight than that of
a neophyte. However, this expert too is subject to other factors-the body of work he or she has
done, the reputation he or she carries, and any known prejudices will impact his or her
credibility.
Relevance of the Methodology:
5
Walker, J., & Monahan, G. (2013). Forensic Evidence in Court
The court would scrutinize the methods applied by the expert in formulating an opinion. To gain
some weight, the methodology should be scientifically and logically sound, widely accepted in
the field, and repeatable.6
For example, if an expert in DNA analysis would apply a validated scientific technique to
compare DNA, their opinion is likely to be held reliable. The court will probably give less
weight to the testimony if an expert relies on experimental or unverified methods.
Verification of the Opinion:
An opinion must be supported by facts, evidence, or data-often referred to as data-driven-and the
person providing the opinion must clearly demonstrate the basis for their conclusions-through
data, case studies, or scientific findings.
An opinion that lacks sufficient foundation, or an opinion appearing to be speculative, will
generally carry less weight. A medical expert must base their diagnosis on medical tests and
clinical observations, rather than hypothetical assumptions, to ensure the court trusts their
conclusions.
B. Expert's Cross-Examination
The checking and testing of an expert's credibility is the most important process: cross-
examination. Through cross-examination, the opposite party can question the expert directly in
order to establish whatever weakness or bias might exist in the qualifications, methods, or
conclusions of the expert.
Objection to Qualifications: Cross-examination provides the opportunity to ask the other party
whether, in fact, the expert possesses all the required qualifications and experience. They can
even attempt to prove that the expert is not adequately qualified or is not experienced enough in
that area.
Methods Used: The adverse party can also scrutinize the methods used by the expert. Thus, for
example, they may assert that the method used is dated, unreliable, and not consistent with well-
established practices of the field, wherefore the opinion is weakened further.
6
The Role of Cross-Examination in Establishing Expert Credibility
Examination of the Expert's Conclusions: This is an opportunity to question the conclusions
reached by the expert. The other side may attempt to establish that factually, the conclusions of
the expert are not adequately supported or that a different interpretation of the data can arrive at
different conclusions.
Cross-examination can drastically change the weight with which the court positions the expert's
testimony by thoroughly questioning the background of the expert and approach and findings. It
is one of the most important ways in which the reliability and objectivity of expert opinions
come under check and help ensure that only evidence-based testimony influences the decision of
the court.
Case Law and Judicial Precedents
Important Decisions in the History of Expert Evidence
R v. Turner (1975):
This is a case from the United Kingdom where the court established the rule that there could be
admissible expert evidence only if it had relevance in explaining problems containing issues
beyond common knowledge.
The court held that if the facts of a case are simple and may be understood by a person of
ordinary knowledge, then the opinion is not required to be supported with expert testimony. This
doctrine limits expert opinions only to matters where they are necessary for explaining issues
involving technical or scientific knowledge, such as medical sciences, scientific theories, etc.
State of U.P. v. Dr. B.C. Roy (1962):
In this Indian case, the court has said that an expert opinion must be supported by strong facts.
The judgment further stated that the expert testimony should not be based on speculation,
assumption, or unverified information.
This would establish for all time the rule that opinions from experts must be strictly proved on
facts that fall within the case record or are within the keen observation of the expert. If an
opinion lacks such a fact-based background then it cannot be relied upon and therefore would
severely curtail the scope of admittance.
T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (1996):
This Indian case clarified that, while expert opinions were admissible, the court had to always
assess the reliability of the opinion and the methods used in reaching that opinion.
In fact, as the court noted, judges should critically assess the scientific validity of the expert's
technique and his conclusions. Such a case emphasizes the need that the court not rely blindly
upon expert opinions without critical examination and that it, besides examining the credentials
of the expert, examine the merits of his system.
Challenges to Expert Opinions
A. Bias and Conflict of Interest
Risk of Bias: Experts may sometimes possess some degree of bias, particularly if they are hired
and paid by one of the parties involved in the case.7 This financial arrangement and several other
personal bonds could create a conflict of interest and might influence the expert to favor one
party over the other.
The Effect on Testimony: Courts are well aware of such biases and factors while judging the
testimony by an expert. In fact, whether the expert in consideration has any kind of personal
interest or financial stake in this case outcome is checked; otherwise, such a thing would
compromise the impartiality and reliability of expert testimony.
Ensuring Objectivity: Another factor that the court may consider in determining the credibility
of an expert witness includes whether there existed some prior relationships between the expert
and the party, the amount and nature of compensation, and any history of partiality. This ensures
that courts are able to find any biases that may be reflected in the way an expert testifies, thus
ensuring their testimonies are as objective and free from bias as possible.
B. Conflict Between Experts
In complex cases, there is a higher tendency of more than one expert arriving at different
conclusions. In this regard, their views may be conflicting, yet they'll be supported by different
forms of evidence, methodologies, and interpretations.
7
Expert Opinion under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Role of the Court : In cases where there is a conflict between the opinions of experts, the court
assesses the credentials and approaches of the said experts while deciding what is more
convincing and acceptable as their testimonies. The Court will take into account the expertise of
the experts, whether their approach and methodologies are accepted in the general field, and
whether their findings are consistent with each other.
Determining Weight: By weighing each expert's contribution carefully, the court could
determine what particular opinion is more convincing and relevant to the case. The resolution of
a conflicting opinion in this manner would determine the most reliable evidence.8
C. Limitations of Expert Testimony
Admissibility Restrictions: An expert opinion is not necessarily admissible. Courts can apply
exclusion of an opinion of an expert witness on the grounds that the witness is unqualified or, if
the opinion does not shed new light on matters of concern. For example, a court can exclude an
opinion if presented by someone not trained in or without acknowledged expertise in the field
being established as relevant.
Role of Expert Testimony: It is also an important fact that expert opinions cannot make final
legal determinations or establish facts of the case. Expert opinions are insights offered to aid the
court in understanding certain technical or specialized information, though these cannot replace
the judgment of the court.
Guidance Instead of Conclusion: Experts can explain evidence and provide technical analyses
but will ultimately rely on the judge or jury to decide upon the sum total of evidence before
them. Thus, expert testimony serves as a guide rather than a decisive consideration in legal
decisions.
Conclusion
"The expert opinions are one of the ingredients that make the law of evidence so dear to help the
court come to a sane explanation to matters far beyond the realm of common knowledge.
Qualified experts offer some viewpoints in terms of science, medicine, technology, etc., for the
court to understand what otherwise might not easily be understood evidence.".
8
Expert Opinion under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
However, opinion of experts is not admissible without any limitation. The views of their are
subject to judicial discretion, that is, to pass various tests so that they could be taken as valid
evidence of technical judgment.
Qualifications of the Expert: The qualifications of the expert are tested according to his
training, experience, and his reputation. Such qualifies the expert in a way by which he should
know about that particular matter of study.
Reliability of Methods The methods applied by the expert should be scientifically and logically
sound, widely accepted in his field, and applicable to the facts of the case. Unproven or
speculative methods have no merit in court.
Relevance of Testimony: Expert opinions must be directly pertinent to the issues at stake.
Courts avoid testimonies that do not yield meaningful value to the case or are too far removed
from the matter at hand.
In addition to these are other conditions, courts remain vigilant about potential biases. The judges
and juries critically evaluate the expert witnesses to ascertain whether they do not hold any bias
in their opinion and if some sort of interest or motivation is attached with the witness that may
influence the expert's outlook on the subject. This scrutiny maintains fairness and impartiality in
judicial proceedings so that justice receives its due without unduly swaying the verdict.
Bibliography
1. K.K. Ahuja, The Law of Evidence, 5th ed. (LexisNexis, 2019).
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 32nd ed. (Wadhwa and Company, 2017).
3. M.P. Tandon, Indian Evidence Act, 23rd ed. (Allahabad Law Agency, 2015).
4. R.V. Puri, Law of Evidence in India, 2nd ed. (LexisNexis, 2018).
5. Dr. K.C. Joshi, Principles of Expert Evidence, (Satyam Law Publications, 2010).
6. Justice P.K. Mishra, Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials, (Academy of
Law, 2014).
