Opinions of experts
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 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 finge The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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. 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.
Section 45, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 39 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 29
- Arunachal Pradesh Homoeopathic Council Act s. 10
- Arunachal Pradesh Indian Medicine Council Act s. 10
- Assam Medical Council Act s. 31
- Delhi Homeopathic Act s. 37
- Goa Ayurvedic and other Allied Indian Systems of Medicine Council Act s. 37 Privileges and Rights of Registered Practitioners
- Goa Homeopathy Council Act s. 37 Practitioner Certificate
- Gujarat Medical Practitioners' Act s. 31
- Gujarat Veterinary Practitioners Act 1969 s. 25
- Haryana Veterinary Council Act, 1976 (37 of 1976) s. 32
- Homoeopathy Central Council Act s. 15
- Indian Medical Council Act s. 14
- Indian Medicine Central Council Act s. 17
and 17 more
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
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: Narco-analysis/polygraph/BEAP as involuntary expert techniques are not admissible opinion evidence.
-
Pampapati S/o. Basavaraj Upase vs Suresh S/o. Basalingappa Rayreddi
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Exhibit P-19 <span id="page-11-1"></span><sup>13</sup> (2023) 1 SCC 83 <span id="page-11-2"></span><sup>14</sup> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 666 <span id="page-11-3"></span><sup>15</sup> Exhibit P-14 <span id="page-11-4"></span><sup>16</sup> Exhibit P-13 expert evidence enumerated under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 11.9 That it is a settled position of law that the accused must be given an opportunity to explain all evidence against him during the recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC which has not been complied with in the instant case inasmuch as the findings of DNA …
-
… However, the Counsellor is not an Expert witness, as has been defined under Section 12 of the Family Court Act which provides that assistance of Medical and Welfare Expert may be taken by the Courts. The Counsellor does not fit into the category of an Expert as envisaged under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such, the Counsellors cannot be called in the witness box. 34. In this regard, reference is made to the Guidelines issued by Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, on Essential Interventions and Skills for Working with Child Sexual Abuse, wherein it has …
-
… However, the Counsellor is not an Expert witness, as has been defined under Section 12 of the Family Court Act which provides that assistance of Medical and Welfare Expert may be taken by the Courts. The Counsellor does not fit into the category of an Expert as envisaged under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such, the Counsellors cannot be called in the witness box. 34. In this regard, reference is made to the Guidelines issued by Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, on Essential Interventions and Skills for Working with Child Sexual Abuse, wherein it has …
Questions about Section 45
What have the courts held on Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (05 May 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Narco-analysis/polygraph/BEAP as involuntary expert techniques are not admissible opinion evidence. 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 45 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 45, section 45 IEA, section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
29 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 39 (Opinions of experts), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, commonly called expert opinion, and cited as IEA 45, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.