Code: Section 40 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent
with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other
persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts
affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain
sea-wall. The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but where there
were no such sea-walls, began to be obstructed at about the same time, is relevant.
Explanation of Section 40 BSA
Section 40 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) addresses the admissibility of facts that either support or contradict relevant expert opinions. While such facts may not seem relevant on their own, they become significant when they contribute to evaluating the accuracy of an expert’s testimony.
This provision ensures that expert opinions are not accepted without scrutiny and that supporting or conflicting factual evidence can be introduced to test their reliability.
Key Highlights:
-
The relevance of facts is conditional on their connection to expert testimony.
-
This allows for a more balanced and evidentially sound judicial process.
-
It helps courts validate technical claims through real-world evidence.
Illustration
Example 1: Medical Expert in a Poisoning Case
An expert claims that a particular poison causes high fever and muscle convulsions. If other individuals poisoned by that substance displayed those same symptoms, the fact supports the expert’s opinion and becomes relevant under Section 40.
Example 2: Environmental Impact on Harbours
If a sea-wall is blamed for obstructing a harbour, and other harbours—similar in nature but without sea-walls—also experienced obstruction during the same period, this fact may challenge the expert opinion that the sea-wall is the sole cause.
Common Questions and Answers on Section 40 BSA
Q1. When do irrelevant facts become relevant under Section 40?
When they either support or contradict a relevant expert opinion.
Q2. Can facts unrelated to the main issue be admitted?
Yes, if they affect the credibility of an expert’s testimony.
Q3. Is an expert’s opinion binding on the court?
No, expert opinions are advisory. Section 40 allows the court to test their credibility with relevant facts.
Q4. What types of experts does this apply to?
This applies to any expert whose opinion is legally relevant in the case—medical, forensic, technical, or environmental, among others.
Conclusion
Section 40 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is a critical provision that ensures expert opinions in legal proceedings are substantiated or challenged using factual evidence. This reinforces objectivity and fairness in evaluating technical testimony.
For more detailed legal explanations and structured insights into BSA and other laws, visit ApniLaw.
