Section 37 BSA: When Other Judgments Are Relevant

Section 37 BSA explains why most previous judgments are irrelevant unless their existence is directly in issue or another provision makes them relevant.

Introduction

Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) establishes the general rule governing judgments, orders and decrees that are not covered by Sections 34, 35 and 36.

The provision states that such judgments are generally irrelevant unless their existence is itself a fact in issue or they become relevant under another provision of the BSA.

The underlying principle is that a judgment delivered in one proceeding does not automatically establish the truth of its findings in a separate proceeding involving different parties or issues. The court must examine the purpose for which the earlier judgment is being introduced and determine whether the law permits it to be considered.

For example, if A obtains a decree against B concerning ownership of a cow, that decree does not automatically establish A’s ownership against C in a separate dispute. However, if the existence of the decree is relevant to explain the motive for a later crime, the court may consider it for that limited purpose.

Section 37 BSA corresponds to Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Bare Act: Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

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) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.

(e) 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 Explanation of Section 37 BSA

Section 37 provides a general rule about the evidentiary value of previous judgments. It must be read alongside Sections 34, 35 and 36, which deal with specific categories of judicial decisions.

The section has two principal exceptions to its general rule of irrelevance.

1. When the existence of the judgment is a fact in issue

A judgment becomes relevant when the fact that it exists is itself directly in issue in the proceeding.

For example, a person may be charged with theft and with having previously been convicted of theft, where the previous conviction is legally relevant to the charge. The existence of the earlier conviction is then a fact in issue.

The earlier judgment is relevant because the court must determine whether the previous conviction exists, not simply because the earlier court made particular findings.

2. When another provision of the BSA makes the judgment relevant

A judgment may also be relevant under another provision of the BSA. In such cases, the court must identify the applicable provision and the specific purpose for which the judgment is being relied upon.

For example, the existence of an earlier decree may be relevant under Section 6 BSA if it helps establish a motive for a subsequent crime. In that situation, the judgment is considered as evidence of motive rather than as conclusive proof of the underlying civil dispute.

3. General rule: Previous findings are not automatically admissible

A party cannot ordinarily establish the truth of a disputed fact merely by producing a judgment in which another court previously accepted that fact.

The court must examine whether the judgment falls within Sections 34, 35 or 36, whether its existence is a fact in issue, or whether another provision makes it relevant.

The general rule prevents a party from using findings in an unrelated proceeding as a substitute for proving the facts in the current case.

Also Read: Section 34 BSA: Previous Judgments Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial

Explanation of the Statutory Illustrations

The illustrations to Section 37 demonstrate the difference between relying on a judgment to establish the truth of its findings and relying on its existence for a legally relevant purpose.

Illustration (a): Separate defamation suits

Facts: A and B separately sue C for libel. C argues in both proceedings that the allegedly defamatory statements are true. A obtains a decree against C because C fails to establish the defence of justification.

Legal principle: The decree obtained by A is irrelevant as between B and C merely because the disputes concern similar allegations. The outcome of A’s case does not automatically establish the truth or falsity of the allegations in B’s separate suit.

Lesson: A judgment in one person’s case does not automatically determine another person’s rights in a separate proceeding.

Illustration (b): A stolen cow sold to a third party

Facts: A prosecutes B for stealing a cow, and B is convicted. B had previously sold the cow to C. A subsequently sues C to recover the cow.

Legal principle: The criminal judgment against B is irrelevant, as between A and C, merely to establish A’s ownership against C.

Lesson: A conviction for theft does not automatically determine ownership of property in a separate civil dispute involving a third party.

Illustration (c): A previous land decree and a subsequent murder

Facts: A obtains a decree for possession of land against B. Subsequently, C, B’s son, murders A as a consequence of that dispute.

Legal principle: The existence of the decree is relevant because it may explain C’s motive for committing the crime.

Lesson: A judgment may be relevant for a specific purpose, such as establishing motive, even though it would not automatically prove the truth of every finding in the earlier proceeding.

Illustration (d): A previous conviction as a fact in issue

Facts: A is charged with theft and with having previously been convicted of theft.

Legal principle: Where the previous conviction is properly part of the case and legally relevant, its existence is a fact in issue.

Lesson: A previous judgment may be relevant when the court must determine whether that judgment exists.

Illustration (e): Previous defamation proceedings as evidence of motive

Facts: A is tried for the murder of B. B had previously prosecuted A for libel, and A was convicted and sentenced.

Legal principle: The previous proceedings may be relevant under Section 6 BSA to establish a possible motive for the murder.

Lesson: The earlier judgment is considered for the limited purpose of explaining the relationship and circumstances that may establish motive, not as proof that A committed the later offence.

Essential Elements of Section 37 BSA

1. The judgment must fall outside Sections 34, 35 and 36

Section 37 applies to judgments, orders and decrees not covered by the three preceding provisions.

• Section 34 concerns previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.
• Section 35 concerns specified judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction.
• Section 36 concerns other judgments relating to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry.

2. The default position is irrelevance

A judgment outside these categories is not ordinarily relevant merely because it exists or contains findings that may assist one party.

The party seeking to rely on it must identify a legally recognised basis for its relevance.

3. The existence of the judgment may itself be in issue

If the existence of a particular judgment is a fact in issue, Section 37 permits it to be relevant.

The judgment’s existence must be distinguished from the truth of every factual finding recorded in it.

4. Another provision may make the judgment relevant

A judgment may be relevant for a specific purpose under another provision of the BSA. The court must examine the requirements of that provision rather than treating all earlier findings as automatically admissible.

5. Relevance does not necessarily establish truth

Even when a judgment is relevant, its evidentiary effect depends on the applicable legal provision and the purpose for which it is introduced.

Section 37 should therefore not be interpreted as making a previous judgment conclusive proof of its contents whenever one of its exceptions applies.

Important Judgments Relating to Section 37 BSA

The following Supreme Court decisions interpreted Section 43 of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or explained the evidentiary value of previous judgments. They are relevant to understanding Section 37 BSA, but they are not direct interpretations of the new provision.

Also Read: Section 36 BSA: Relevancy and Effect of Other Judgments

1. K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002)

Citation: (2002) 8 SCC 87

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court examined the effect of previous civil and criminal judgments and the circumstances in which findings in one proceeding could be relevant in another.

The Court explained that the evidentiary effect of a previous judgment must be determined under the applicable provisions of the Evidence Act. A judgment does not automatically bind a court dealing with a separate proceeding merely because the two matters concern related facts.

The decision emphasises the importance of distinguishing between judgments that receive special treatment under the statutory provisions governing previous judgments and those whose relevance must be established under another rule.

Legal principle: A previous judgment is not automatically proof of the truth of its findings in a separate proceeding. Its relevance and effect depend on the applicable provision of evidence law.

2. Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi (1955)

Citation: AIR 1955 SC 566

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court considered the evidentiary effect of an earlier judgment in proceedings involving questions connected with succession and property.

The decision is relevant to understanding the distinction between the existence of a judgment and the extent to which its findings may be relied upon in another proceeding. The court must consider the statutory provisions governing the admissibility and effect of previous judicial decisions.

Legal principle: A previous judgment should not be treated as automatically establishing every fact recorded in it. Its effect depends on the applicable law and the purpose for which it is relied upon.

3. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh (1983)

Citation: (1983) 3 SCC 118

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court discussed the evidentiary value of previous judgments in the context of a dispute involving historical and documentary material relating to succession and property.

The Court considered the limits on using judicial decisions as evidence of the truth of facts stated in them. The case illustrates the importance of distinguishing between a judgment’s relevance for a particular purpose and its ability to prove the underlying facts in another proceeding.

Legal principle: The evidentiary value of a previous judgment must be assessed in light of the applicable statutory provisions. The existence of a judgment does not automatically make its findings conclusive in another case.

Difference Between Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 BSA

Provision	Subject	General evidentiary effect
Section 34	Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial	Relevant when a legal bar to the later proceeding is in issue
Section 35	Specified judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction	Conclusive proof of the matters specified in the section
Section 36	Other judgments relating to relevant matters of a public nature	Relevant but not conclusive proof of what they state
Section 37	Other judgments, orders and decrees	Generally irrelevant unless an exception applies

The distinction is important for examinations. Section 37 is the general rule for judgments not covered by the preceding three provisions.

Section 37 BSA and Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Basis	Section 37 BSA	Section 43, Indian Evidence Act
Subject	Other judgments, orders and decrees when relevant	Same subject
General rule	Such judgments are irrelevant unless an exception applies	Same principle
First exception	Existence of the judgment is a fact in issue	Same principle
Second exception	Another provision of the BSA makes the judgment relevant	Another provision of the former Act makes it relevant
Illustrations	Five illustrations	Six illustrations in the former provision, including one concerning a prior adultery conviction
Current status	In force from 1 July 2024	Repealed, subject to applicable savings provisions

Section 37 BSA substantially carries forward the rule in Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The BSA illustrations have been adapted to reflect the corresponding provisions of the new Act.

Related Legal Provisions

• Section 6 BSA: Facts that establish motive, preparation or previous or subsequent conduct may be relevant. This provision is expressly referenced in illustration (e) to Section 37.
• Section 34 BSA: Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.
• Section 35 BSA: Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction.
• Section 36 BSA: Relevancy and effect of judgments relating to matters of a public nature.
• Section 40 BSA: Previous judgments relevant to prevent a second suit or trial in specified circumstances concerning public rights, as provided by that section.
• Section 41 BSA: Fraud or collusion in obtaining a judgment, or the incompetency of a court, may be relevant in the circumstances specified by the provision.

Important Points for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

• Section 37 BSA corresponds to Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• It establishes the general rule that judgments outside Sections 34, 35 and 36 are irrelevant.
• The first exception applies when the existence of the judgment is a fact in issue.
• The second exception applies when another provision of the BSA makes the judgment relevant.
• A previous judgment does not automatically prove the truth of all its findings in a later proceeding.
• A judgment may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as showing motive under Section 6 BSA.
• The five statutory illustrations cover separate defamation suits, a stolen cow, a land decree and subsequent murder, a previous conviction, and a previous libel case relevant to motive.
• Relevance and conclusive proof are different concepts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 37 of the BSA?

Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes that judgments, orders and decrees outside Sections 34, 35 and 36 are generally irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or another provision of the BSA makes them relevant.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 37 BSA?

Section 37 BSA corresponds to Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Are previous judgments always admissible as evidence?

No. A previous judgment is not automatically relevant merely because a court delivered it. Its relevance must be established under Section 34, 35, 36 or 37 BSA, or another applicable provision.

4. When can the existence of a previous judgment be relevant?

The existence of a previous judgment may be relevant when it is itself a fact in issue or when another provision of the BSA makes it relevant for a specific purpose, such as establishing motive.

5. Does a previous civil judgment bind a criminal court?

Not automatically. The evidentiary effect of a civil judgment in criminal proceedings depends on the applicable law and the purpose for which the judgment is relied upon. A civil judgment does not ordinarily establish guilt in a criminal trial.

6. What is the difference between Section 36 and Section 37 BSA?

Section 36 makes judgments concerning relevant matters of a public nature relevant, although they are not conclusive proof of what they state. Section 37 generally treats other judgments as irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or another provision makes them relevant.

Conclusion

Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes the general rule governing previous judgments that do not fall within Sections 34, 35 and 36. Such judgments are ordinarily irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or another provision of the BSA makes them relevant. The provision prevents parties from relying on findings in unrelated proceedings as automatic proof of disputed facts while allowing earlier judgments to be considered for legally recognised purposes. For examinations, remember the central rule: a previous judgment is not automatically relevant; its relevance must be established under a specific provision of evidence law.