Facts bearing on expert opinions become relevant, though independently irrelevant, when they support or contradict an expert opinion that is relevant to the issue. Comparative evidence may test the reliability and evidentiary weight of expert conclusions, including evidence of symptoms in other poison-exposure cases or similar harbour conditions bearing on causation of obstruction.

Section 45A treats the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence as a relevant fact where an opinion is required concerning information transmitted or stored in a computer resource or other electronic or digital form. The Examiner is treated as an expert for this purpose.

Expert opinion evidence is relevant where forming an opinion requires specialised knowledge of foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, or finger impressions. The opinion must be given by a person specially skilled in the relevant field, who is treated as an expert. Relevant applications include medical opinions concerning poisoning or unsoundness of mind, and expert comparison of disputed writing with admitted or proved handwriting.

Section 44 permits any party to a suit or other proceeding to challenge a judgment, order, or decree relied upon and proved by the adverse party where it is relevant under the provisions governing prior judgments. The party may establish that the deciding court lacked competence or that the judgment was procured through fraud or collusion.

Judgments, orders and decrees outside sections 40, 41 and 42 are generally irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or they are independently relevant under another provision. A prior adjudication involving other parties ordinarily cannot establish disputed facts in later proceedings. It may, however, be relevant to show motive, while a previous conviction is relevant when it is itself a fact in issue.

Judgments, orders and decrees concerning matters of a public nature may be relevant to an enquiry even when they do not fall within section 41. Their relevance does not make them conclusive proof of the facts stated. A prior decree concerning an asserted public right of way may therefore be considered in a later trespass dispute, without conclusively establishing the existence of that right.

Final judgments, orders or decrees of competent courts exercising probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction are relevant where they confer, remove or declare a legal character, or declare absolute entitlement to a specific thing. Such adjudications constitute conclusive proof of the legal character or title declared, including the time at which that character accrued or ceased, or the property became vested.

Previous judgments, orders or decrees that legally prevent a court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial are relevant facts. Their existence is relevant when determining whether the court ought to take cognizance of that suit or hold that trial, in relation to a legal bar against a second suit or trial.

Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings that could have been taken against a deceased assessee to be initiated against the legal representative; it does not validate initiation against the deceased person. A scrutiny notice under section 143(2) is a substantive jurisdictional requirement for assessment under section 143(3). Where the legal representative filed the return, was registered by the Department before issue of notice, and promptly objected, a system-generated notice in the deceased person's name is void ab initio. The defect is jurisdictional, not procedural, and cannot be cured without waiver; consequential scrutiny assessment proceedings are quashed.

Section 39 applies the rule of evidentiary completeness when a statement forms part of a longer statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book, or connected correspondence. Evidence may include only the connected material that the Court considers necessary to understand the statement's nature and effect and the circumstances in which it was made. Material exceeding that necessity is excluded.

Foreign-law evidence is relevant where an opinion must be formed on the law of another country. Statements contained in books purporting to be printed or published under that country's Government authority, and reports of rulings contained in books purporting to report them, are relevant for ascertaining that law.

Statements concerning facts of public nature are relevant where a court must form an opinion on their existence, if contained in statutory recitals or specified gazette publications. Relevant sources include Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, Central, Provincial and State Acts, Government or Crown Representative notifications in the Official Gazette, and printed papers purporting to be the London Gazette or certain Government Gazettes.

Section 36 recognises statements concerning facts in issue or relevant facts as relevant when appearing in maps or charts published for general public sale, or in maps or plans prepared under Central or State Government authority. Relevance is limited to matters customarily depicted or recorded in those materials.

An entry in a public or official book, register, record or electronic record is a relevant fact if it states a fact in issue or other relevant fact and is made in the discharge of official duty. The entry may be made by a public servant or by another person carrying out a duty specifically imposed by the law of the country where the record is maintained.

Entries in books of account, including electronically maintained books, are relevant where they concern a matter under judicial inquiry and are regularly kept in the course of business. However, such entries cannot alone charge a person with liability. Independent supporting evidence is required to establish the asserted obligation, including a claimed debt recorded in account books.

Section 33 permits prior witness evidence to prove the truth of facts in a subsequent proceeding or later stage of the same proceeding where the witness is unavailable through death, absence, incapacity, exclusion by the adverse party, or unreasonable delay or expense. The earlier proceeding must involve the same parties or their representatives, the adverse party must have had a right and opportunity to cross-examine, and the issues must be substantially the same. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor and accused are treated as parties.

Statements of relevant facts made by persons who are dead, missing, incapable of testifying, or unavailable without unreasonable delay or expense may be relevant within specified categories. These include statements on the cause of death, ordinary business records, declarations against pecuniary or proprietary interest, and statements exposing the maker to criminal prosecution or damages. Relevance also covers qualifying pre-dispute declarations on public rights, customs, family relationships, specified transactions, and collective feelings or impressions.

Admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted, but may operate as estoppels where applicable provisions governing estoppel are satisfied. Their evidentiary character remains non-final, although they may have binding legal consequences that prevent a party from departing from an admitted position in circumstances governed by estoppel, as legally applicable.

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a court, where more than one person is jointly tried for the same offence, to take into consideration a proved confession made by one accused that affects both its maker and one or more co-accused. Consideration is discretionary and may operate against the confessor as well as the implicated co-accused.

Confessions that are otherwise relevant remain legally relevant despite circumstances surrounding their procurement or making. Relevance is not displaced merely because the confession was made under a promise of secrecy, obtained through deception practised on the accused, made while the accused was drunk, or given without warning that it could be used as evidence against them.