Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 55 docs - [View All]
Amin Shariff vs Emperor on 21 February, 1934
Firm Sheo Prasad Ram Prasad vs Govind Prasad And Ors. on 12 January, 1927
State Of Jharkhand And Ors. vs Arjun Das on 5 October, 2004
In Re: Bandi Murugulu vs Unknown on 4 October, 1960
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960

User Queries
[Complete Act]
Central Government Act
Section 46 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
46. 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. tc "46. 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." Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that person, 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. COMMENTS tc "COMMENTS" Admissibility The science of identification of footprints is not a fully developed science and therefore if in a given case, evidence relating to the same is found satisfactory it may be used only to reinforce the conclusions as to the identity of a culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence; Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 4 Supreme 635.