Section 37 BSA 2023: Judgments, Orders or Decrees Other Than Those Mentioned in Sections 34, 35 and 36
Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the evidentiary relevance of judgments, orders and decrees that do not fall within Sections 34, 35 or 36. The general rule is that such judicial decisions are irrelevant unless their very existence is a fact in issue or they become relevant under another provision of the Adhiniyam.
Text of Section 37
37. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant.
Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.
Illustrations
- A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
- A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
- A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.
- A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
- A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 6 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.
Meaning and Scope of Section 37
Section 37 creates a general exclusionary rule for judgments, orders and decrees that are outside the categories specifically dealt with in Sections 34, 35 and 36. A previous judicial decision cannot ordinarily be used merely to prove that the conclusion reached in that earlier proceeding must also be accepted in a different proceeding.
The provision nevertheless recognises two important situations in which such a judgment, order or decree may become relevant: first, when its existence is itself a fact in issue; and second, when another provision of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam makes that existence relevant. The illustrations show that relevance depends on the purpose for which the earlier judgment is relied upon, not simply on the fact that a court has already decided another case.
Key Principles
- General rule: A judgment, order or decree not covered by Sections 34, 35 or 36 is ordinarily irrelevant.
- Fact in issue: It becomes relevant where the existence of the earlier judgment itself forms part of what the court must determine.
- Relevance under another provision: It may also be admissible where another provision of the Adhiniyam makes the existence of that judgment relevant, such as for proving motive.
- No automatic proof against strangers: A finding in one proceeding does not automatically establish the same fact against a person who was not bound by that adjudication.
- Purpose matters: The court must examine why the previous judgment is being tendered in evidence and whether that purpose is legally relevant.
Relationship with Sections 34 to 36
Section 37 should be read with the immediately preceding provisions. Section 34 addresses previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial; Section 35 concerns certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction; and Section 36 deals with judgments, orders or decrees relating to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry. Section 37 operates as the residual rule for other judgments, orders and decrees.
Practical Effect
When a party relies on an earlier judgment, the court should first identify whether it falls within Sections 34, 35 or 36. If it does not, Section 37 requires a further enquiry: is the existence of that judgment itself a fact in issue, or does another provision of the BSA make it relevant? If neither condition is satisfied, the earlier judgment is irrelevant for the purpose for which it is offered.
Related Provisions
For the surrounding statutory scheme, see Section 34, Section 35, Section 36 and Section 38.