Difference between Section 45 and Section 47 in the India Evidence Act, 1872 are explained below:
In Fakhruddin, Appellant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Respondent (AIR 1967 SC 1326) case, Hidayatulla, J., made the following observation on this point: “Both under Sections 45 and 47, the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In either case, the Court must satisfy by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case.
The comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in a large measure in the disputed writing.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
In this way, the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative.
Where an expert’s opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion, whether of the expert or other witness.