Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: When Other Judgments, Orders or Decrees Are Relevant

Section 43 states the general rule for judgments, orders and decrees that do not fall within Sections 40, 41 or 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ordinarily, such decisions are irrelevant. They become relevant only where the existence of the judgment, order or decree is itself a fact in issue or where another provision of the Act makes its existence relevant.

Meaning and purpose of Section 43

The provisions concerning the relevancy of judgments are grouped in Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 43 functions as the residual rule. If a previous judgment does not qualify for relevancy under Sections 40, 41 or 42, it cannot ordinarily be used to prove the truth of the matters decided in that judgment merely because a court previously reached that conclusion.

The important exception is where the existence of the earlier judgment, order or decree is itself material to the dispute, or where its existence becomes relevant under another provision of the Evidence Act. For example, a prior proceeding or conviction may, depending on the facts and the applicable provision, be relevant to establish motive.

Text of Section 43

How Section 43 works with Sections 40 to 42

Two situations in which an otherwise irrelevant judgment may become relevant

1. Existence of the judgment is a fact in issue

A previous judgment may be relevant where the very fact that the judgment exists is directly in issue. In that situation, the judgment is not being tendered merely to establish that its findings were correct; its existence is itself a material fact requiring proof.

2. Existence of the judgment is relevant under another provision

A judgment may also become relevant when another provision of the Evidence Act makes its existence relevant. The statutory illustrations show this distinction clearly. In particular, the existence of an earlier proceeding or conviction may be relevant under Section 8 where it supplies evidence of motive for the act in issue.

Statutory illustrations to Section 43

1. A and B separately sue C for a libel reflecting upon each of them. A obtains a decree for damages because C fails to establish justification. That decree is irrelevant in the separate dispute between B and C.
2. A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife, and B is convicted. C is later prosecuted for bigamy after marrying B during A's lifetime and disputes that she was ever A's wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant against C.
3. A prosecutes B for stealing a cow and B is convicted. A later sues C for the cow, which B had sold to C before the conviction. The judgment against B is irrelevant between A and C.
4. A obtains a decree for possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the decree is relevant because it may show motive for the crime.
5. A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant when that prior conviction is itself a fact in issue.
6. A is tried for the murder of B. B had earlier prosecuted A for libel and A had been convicted and sentenced. The earlier prosecution and conviction are relevant under Section 8 insofar as they show motive for the fact in issue.

Practical effect of Section 43

Section 43 prevents an earlier judicial decision from automatically becoming evidence of the truth of its findings in a different proceeding. A party relying on a prior judgment must identify the legal basis on which that judgment is relevant. Where Sections 40, 41 and 42 do not apply, the party must show either that the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue or that another provision of the Evidence Act makes it relevant.

This distinction is important because the relevancy of the existence of a judgment does not necessarily mean that every factual finding or statement contained in that judgment becomes substantive evidence in the later proceeding.

Related provision: Section 8 and motive

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act makes facts showing or constituting motive or preparation relevant, and also addresses specified previous or subsequent conduct. Illustrations (d) and (f) to Section 43 demonstrate how the existence of an earlier decree, prosecution or conviction can become relevant because it bears upon motive.

Relationship with Section 44

Section 44 permits a party, in the circumstances specified there, to show that a judgment, order or decree relevant under Section 40, 41 or 42 and proved by the adverse party was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. Section 43 should therefore be read as part of the connected statutory scheme governing the evidentiary treatment of judgments.

Key takeaway