Section 39 of BSA : Section 39: Opinions of experts.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: A high-profile murder case in Mumbai involves the death of a businessman, Mr. Sharma, who was found dead in his apartment. The police suspect that he was poisoned.

Application of Section 39:

• The court needs to determine whether Mr. Sharma's death was caused by poison.
• The prosecution presents the testimony of Dr. Mehta, a forensic toxicologist, who is an expert in poisons.
• Dr. Mehta explains the symptoms of the specific poison found in Mr. Sharma's body and confirms that these symptoms match those observed in Mr. Sharma's case.
• The court considers Dr. Mehta's expert opinion as a relevant fact in determining the cause of death.

Example 2:

Scenario: In a property dispute in Delhi, a will is presented that allegedly bears the signature of the deceased, Mr. Verma. However, Mr. Verma's son claims that the signature is forged.

Application of Section 39:

• The court needs to determine whether the signature on the will is genuinely Mr. Verma's.
• The court calls upon Mr. Kapoor, a handwriting expert, to compare the signature on the will with other documents known to have been signed by Mr. Verma.
• Mr. Kapoor analyzes the handwriting characteristics and provides his expert opinion that the signature on the will matches Mr. Verma's known signatures.
• The court considers Mr. Kapoor's expert opinion as a relevant fact in deciding the authenticity of the will.

Example 3:

Scenario: A software company in Bengaluru is accused of hacking into a competitor's computer system and stealing confidential data. The case involves complex digital evidence.

Application of Section 39:

• The court needs to form an opinion on the digital evidence presented.
• The court appoints Mr. Rao, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence as per Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to analyze the digital data.
• Mr. Rao examines the logs, metadata, and other digital footprints to determine whether the hacking occurred and identifies the source of the breach.
• The court considers Mr. Rao's expert opinion as a relevant fact in deciding the case.

Example 4:

Scenario: In a criminal case in Chennai, the defendant, Mr. Kumar, claims that he was not in his right mind when he committed the alleged crime due to a mental disorder.

Application of Section 39:

• The court needs to determine whether Mr. Kumar was of unsound mind at the time of the crime.
• The court calls upon Dr. Reddy, a psychiatrist, to evaluate Mr. Kumar's mental state.
• Dr. Reddy examines Mr. Kumar and reviews his medical history, providing an expert opinion that Mr. Kumar's symptoms are consistent with a severe mental disorder that could impair his judgment.
• The court considers Dr. Reddy's expert opinion as a relevant fact in determining Mr. Kumar's mental state during the crime.