Analysis of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinions in Indian Law

Introduction

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Act"), occupies a pivotal position in the Indian legal system by providing the framework for the admissibility of expert opinions in judicial proceedings. In an era of increasing specialization and complexity, courts often require assistance from individuals possessing specialized knowledge or skills to arrive at just and informed decisions. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 45, examining its statutory contours, the nature and scope of expert testimony, judicial interpretation of its provisions, and the evidentiary weight accorded to such opinions. The discussion draws extensively upon the provided reference materials, incorporating relevant case law and statutory provisions to elucidate the multifaceted dimensions of expert evidence in India.

The Statutory Framework: Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 45 of the Act lays down the foundational rule for the relevance of expert opinions. It states:

"45. 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 or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."[14]

The illustrations appended to Section 45 further clarify its application, for instance, in cases of death by poison or questions of unsoundness of mind.[14] The core components of this section are:

  • The necessity for the Court to form an opinion on a specific matter.
  • The subject matter must pertain to foreign law, science, art, or identity of handwriting or finger impressions.
  • The opinion must be of a person "specially skilled" in that particular field, who is termed an "expert."
  • Such opinions are deemed "relevant facts."

The scope of "science or art" has been interpreted broadly. For example, the Supreme Court in State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) v. S.J Choudhary (1996)[19] held that the opinion of a typewriter expert regarding the identity of typewriting falls within the ambit of "science" under Section 45, even though typewriting was not explicitly mentioned when the Act was enacted in 1872. The Court reasoned that the expression "science, or art" is of wide import and must be construed broadly to include expertise in various branches of these subjects.[19]

In the contemporary digital age, the legislature has recognized the need for specialized expertise in electronic evidence. Section 45-A was introduced into the Act, which reads:

"45-A. 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 79-A 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."[12]

This provision, as highlighted in Anvar P.V v. P.K Basheer And Others (2014)[12], specifically addresses the admissibility of opinions from Examiners of Electronic Evidence, underscoring the evolving nature of expert testimony to keep pace with technological advancements.

Nature and Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Expert evidence is essentially opinion evidence, and its primary function is to assist the court in understanding technical or specialized matters that are beyond the ken of a layperson. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited And Others (2009)[3], citing Titli Alias Tereza v. Alfred Robert Jones (1934), reiterated that the role of an expert is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the judge to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The expert is not to act as a judge or jury.[3]

While Section 45 makes expert opinions relevant, it is crucial to understand that such opinions are not conclusive. The court is not bound by the expert's opinion; it is merely a piece of evidence that the court must consider along with other evidence on record. The judiciary retains the ultimate authority to evaluate the credibility and weight of expert testimony. As observed in Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1979)[5], the court must exercise its own judgment and not surrender it to the expert.

Specific Areas of Expert Testimony under Section 45

Handwriting and Signature Verification

A significant domain where expert opinion is frequently sought under Section 45 is the identification of handwriting or signatures. The opinion of a handwriting expert becomes relevant when the court needs to determine the authorship of a disputed document. Courts often rely on such experts to compare disputed writings with admitted or proven samples. This is often done in conjunction with Section 73 of the Act, which empowers the court to direct any person present in court to write words or figures for comparison, or to compare admitted/proven signatures, writings, or seals with the disputed ones.[17], [21]

The Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1979)[5] extensively discussed the evidentiary value of handwriting expert opinions. While acknowledging that handwriting identification is not as perfect a science as fingerprint analysis, the Court held that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence, which has crystallized into a rule of law, that expert opinion on handwriting must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. However, the Court also emphasized the need for caution and careful scrutiny of the expert's reasoning.[5] This view was also reflected in earlier cases like Fakhruddin v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (1966)[7], where the court conducted its own comparison in addition to considering the expert's opinion. Cases like Ram Chandra v. U.P State (AIR 1957 SC 381), cited in Murari Lal, also advised a cautious approach.[5]

The practical application of Section 45 in handwriting disputes is evident in numerous cases, including those involving negotiable instruments. For instance, in Mangal Singh & Anr. v. Khurana Chemicals (2006)[22] and BASAPPA S/O YALLAPPA GADDAR v. BHAVARALAL S/O GISULAL SHA (2023)[26], applications were made to seek handwriting expert opinions on cheques. However, in SMT. RADHA v. R RAMAIAH (2024)[29], the court, citing L.C.Goyal V/s Mrs.Suresh Joshi (1999), noted that if a cheque is returned for "funds insufficient" and not "signature differ," the bank manager might be a more pertinent witness than a handwriting expert if the signature itself is not the primary reason for dishonor by the bank.[29]

The power of the court to compare writings under Section 73 is complementary to Section 45. As held in ANANTA KUNDU v. DILIP UPADHYAY (2024)[21], even without an expert's opinion, the court has the power to compare writings and arrive at its own conclusion.

The issue of obtaining specimen writings for comparison has also been judicially considered. While Section 73 allows comparison, the power of a magistrate to direct an accused to give specimen writings during investigation was initially doubted in State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra (1980)[1], which suggested legislative intervention. However, State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (1978)[9] affirmed the Magistrate's authority under Section 73 to direct an accused to submit specimen writings to enable the court to make a proper comparison, emphasizing that this does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Medical Expertise

Expert medical opinion is indispensable in various legal contexts, particularly in cases of medical negligence, personal injury, and determination of cause of death. In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited And Others (2009)[3], a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of expert opinions in establishing negligence, as such cases inherently involve specialized knowledge. The Court set aside the NCDRC's order due to procedural lapses in forwarding essential medical records to an appointed expert, thereby denying a fair opportunity to the appellant.[3]

Similarly, in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee And Others (2009)[4], which also dealt with medical negligence, the Supreme Court discussed the standards of care (referencing the Bolam test and Bolitho principle) and the role of expert evidence in determining whether a medical professional acted with a reasonable degree of skill and care. The Court emphasized that while expert opinions are crucial, they must be logical and supported by evidence.[4]

Scientific and Technical Opinions

The terms "science or art" in Section 45 are interpreted broadly to include a wide array of specialized fields. As discussed, State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) v. S.J Choudhary (1996)[19] expanded this to include typewriting analysis. The advent of Section 45-A for electronic evidence (Anvar P.V v. P.K Basheer And Others (2014)[12]) further exemplifies this.

However, not all scientific techniques or opinions derived therefrom are admissible. The Supreme Court in Selvi And Others v. State Of Karnataka (2010)[8] held that the involuntary administration of techniques like narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests violates the "right against self-incrimination" under Article 20(3) and "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the primary ground was constitutional, the Court also questioned the scientific reliability and ethical considerations of these methods, which indirectly touches upon the foundational requirements for expert testimony.[8] The Madras High Court in A.Panneerselvam v. State Through The (2008)[27] also noted, citing foreign jurisprudence, that polygraph evidence is not typically considered expert evidence under Section 45, being a "science in mystique," and at best could be an aid to investigation.

Other Areas

Section 45 also explicitly covers opinions on foreign law and finger impressions. The principles governing the admissibility and evaluation of expert opinions in these areas would generally align with those discussed for other fields, focusing on the expert's skill and the reasoning behind the opinion.

Qualifications and Credibility of an Expert

For an opinion to be admissible under Section 45, it must be rendered by a person "specially skilled" in the relevant field. The Supreme Court in State Of H.P v. Jai Lal And Others (1999)[11] emphasized that mere professional experience does not automatically qualify an individual as an expert. The witness must demonstrate specialized knowledge, study, or practice in the specific area. In this case, the testimony of a District Horticulture Officer regarding apple orchard productivity was found deficient due to a lack of specific methodology, supporting data, and admitted limitations in expertise.[11]

An expert's opinion must be supported by reasons and data. As cited in State Of H.P v. Jai Lal, the case of Hazi Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State of W.B (AIR 1959 SC 488) underscored the importance of concrete reasons and supporting data for an expert's opinion to be credible.[11]

Regarding the form of expert evidence, Ramesh Babu v. M. Sreedhar (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2009)[15], citing B. Poornaish v. Union of India (AIR 1967 A.P 338), observed that the opinion of an expert must generally be given orally, and a mere report or certificate cannot be evidence unless a statute so provides. However, Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allows the report of a Commissioner (who may be an expert) and evidence taken by him to be evidence in the suit.[15]

Evidentiary Value and Judicial Approach

The opinion of an expert is not substantive evidence but rather opinion evidence, intended to assist the court. It is a settled principle that courts must not delegate their decision-making authority to experts. The evidence of an expert is not infallible and must be approached with caution. As stated in Murari Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1979)[5], the court is the ultimate arbiter and must form its own independent conclusion after considering the expert's opinion along with other evidence.

While corroboration is often sought, especially for handwriting expert opinions, Murari Lal clarified that it is not an inflexible rule of law.[5] The Kerala High Court in K.K.RAVINDRAN v. REKHAPRAKASHAN (2024)[28], citing Mallikarjuna Rao v. Nalabothu Punnaiah ((2013) 4 SCC 546), noted the contention that handwriting expert's opinion under Sections 45 and 73 is weak evidence and courts should be slow to base findings solely on such opinion, applying their own mind.[28]

The court must assess the expert's credibility, the scientific basis of the opinion, and the cogency of the reasoning. Conflicting expert opinions, as noted in Chamkaur Singh v. Mithu Singh (2013)[17], can be disruptive and weaken the credibility of expert evidence generally, requiring careful judicial evaluation.

Procedural Aspects of Obtaining Expert Opinion

Parties often file applications before the court to seek expert opinions, for instance, under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the CPC for scientific investigation, or directly invoking Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court exercises discretion in allowing such applications, considering factors like the stage of the proceedings and the necessity of the expert opinion for a just adjudication. Cases like K. Shankarappa v. Chikkamma (2013)[23], E. Vasantha & Others v. Pachaiammal (2020)[30], and SRI SAHADEV S/O RUKKU GHATAGE, v. SRI LAJAM DADESAB MEVEGAR (2017)[24] illustrate such procedural applications. The timing of such applications can also be a factor, as seen in R.Manoharan v. K.M.Saminathan (2022)[25], where an application filed after the commencement of trial was considered.

Discussion of Reference Materials with Limited Direct Relevance to Section 45

Several provided reference materials, while dealing with legal issues in India, have limited direct bearing on the interpretation or application of Section 45 of the Evidence Act:

  • Murarilal Sharma v. State Of M.P. (2009)[2] primarily concerns pension rights post-conviction and procedural rules under service law, without any discussion of expert evidence under Section 45.
  • MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF U.P. (2023)[6] deals with the quashing of an FIR and does not involve questions of expert opinion under Section 45.
  • Forest Range Officer And Others v. P. Mohammed Ali And Others (1993)[10] pertains to the definition of 'forest produce' under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and does not engage with Section 45.
  • Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001)[13] discusses Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act and proof of documents (Sections 64, 65 of the Evidence Act), not expert opinions under Section 45.
  • Manoj Monu Vishal Chaudhary (S) v. State Of Haryana And Another (S). (2022)[16] focuses on Section 35 of the Evidence Act regarding the relevancy of entries in public records, which is distinct from expert testimony.

These cases, while important in their respective domains, do not substantially contribute to the analysis of Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a critical provision that enables courts to access specialized knowledge essential for resolving complex disputes. The judiciary has consistently emphasized that while expert opinions are valuable aids, they are not binding, and the court must independently assess the evidence and form its own conclusions. The scope of "science or art" has been interpreted expansively to accommodate advancements in various fields, including electronic evidence through Section 45-A. However, the admissibility of certain scientific techniques remains contentious, particularly when they impinge upon fundamental rights or lack established reliability.

The credibility of an expert and the scientific rigor of their opinion are paramount. Courts are tasked with carefully scrutinizing the qualifications of the expert, the methodology employed, the reasoning supporting the opinion, and whether it is corroborated by other evidence. Ultimately, Section 45 facilitates a more informed adjudicatory process, ensuring that justice is rendered based on a comprehensive understanding of all relevant facts, including those requiring specialized expertise.

References