Section 44 in Indian Evidence Act 1872
Title: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of Court may be proved
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
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.
(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
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)
Title: Facts bearing upon opinions of experts
Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(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
Title: Opinion as to handwriting when relevant
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation. -- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London.
B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B's clerk whose duty to was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon.
The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write