Opinions of experts
Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with opinions of experts. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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 (21 of 2000), is a relevant fact.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert.
Section 39, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 45 Opinions of experts Text carried over almost unchanged 92%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 45, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) (testimonial compulsion) and Article 21. Results of involuntary tests are inadmissible. Voluntary tests with safeguards may be conducted; derivative use of facts discovered is constrained by Evidence Act section 27 principles.
On this section: BSA 39 succeeds IEA 45 (expert opinion); Selvi's bar on involuntary scientific tests carries forward.
-
Pampapati S/o. Basavaraj Upase vs Suresh S/o. Basalingappa Rayreddi
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 45, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Disputed questions of fact regarding cheque issuance, forgery allegations, and the authenticity of signatures cannot be resolved under Section 482 CrPC at the pre-trial stage. Such matters require full trial with proper examination of evidence, including expert opinion on handwriting. The plea of alibi cannot be considered before trial, and once such plea is taken, the burden shifts to the accused. The trial court's taking of cognizance and issuance of process in private complaints under Section 138 NI Act is not irregular merely because the accused disputes the facts; the trial court is competent to take cognizance on private complaints and issue process, with disputed facts to be resolved at trial.
On this section: Expert opinion on handwriting; court noted accused can refer matter to handwriting expert to dispute cheque signatures
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 39
What have the courts held on Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (05 May 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 45, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BSA 39 succeeds IEA 45 (expert opinion); Selvi's bar on involuntary scientific tests carries forward. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 39, section 39 BSA, section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 39(1) and bsa 39 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Selvi v. State of Karnataka (05 May 2010).
What should I read with Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 45 (Opinions of experts), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, commonly called expert opinion, and cited as BSA 39, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.