Section 42 in Indian Evidence Act 1872

Title: Relevancy and effect of judgments orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41

Description: Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustration A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

Title: Judgments etc other than those mentioned in sections 40 41 and 42 when relevant

Description: Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act. Illustrations (a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C. (b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife. B denies that C is As wife, but the Court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A's lifetime. C says that she never was A's wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C. (c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. A's between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant. (d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime. 1[(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue. (f) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.] 1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 5

Title: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of Court may be proved

Description: Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Title: Opinions of experts

Description: 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, 1[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 2[or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 1[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. 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3 For discussion in Council as to whether "finger impressions" include "thumb impressions" see Gazette of India, 1898, pt VI, p. 24. 2. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 4.

Title: Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence

Description: 1[45A. 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 79A 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.] 1. Ins. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52 (w.e.f. 27-10-2009)