§ SECTION 37 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Judgments, orders or decrees other than those in sections 34, 35 and 36, when relevant

The judgments run closes with its default rule: any other judgment is irrelevant — unless its existence is a fact in issue, or it is made relevant by some other provision (such as § 6, motive).

How to read Section 37

Irrelevant by default — save two gates.

The default

Any judgment not within §§ 34, 35 or 36 is irrelevant.

Gate 1

Unless its existence is a fact in issue (e.g. a charged previous conviction).

Gate 2

Or it is relevant under some other provision (e.g. § 6, as motive).

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 37 · verbatim

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.

In short: a judgment between other people does not, by itself, prove anything in your case — that is the default of irrelevance. It slips in only through two narrow gates: when the fact that the judgment exists is itself in issue, or when another section (very often § 6, motive) makes that existence relevant.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 43 — the residual rule closing the run on judgments (§§ 34–37).

Glossary

other than sections 34, 35, 36

Not a bar-judgment, an in rem judgment, or a public-nature judgment — i.e. an ordinary judgment between other parties.

irrelevant

The default — such a judgment does not prove the facts it decided.

existence is a fact in issue

Gate 1 — where the very fact that the judgment exists is one of the things to be decided (e.g. a charged previous conviction).

some other provision

Gate 2 — another section (commonly § 6, motive) that makes the judgment’s existence relevant.

previous conviction

Illustration (d) — when charged as part of the offence, its existence is a fact in issue.

motive

Illustrations (c) & (e) — the judgment’s existence explains why a later crime was done (§ 6).

The picture

Irrelevant — unless one of two gates opens.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe Illustrations

the ruleOther judgments — irrelevant, with two exceptions

In one lineA judgment (not one of §§ 34–36) is irrelevant by default — unless its existence is a fact in issue, or it is relevant under some other provision of the Act.

Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36,any other judgmentany judgment / order / decree not covered by §§ 34–36…

are irrelevant,⚠ default: IRRELEVANT…is, by default, irrelevant — it does not prove the facts it decided…

unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue,exception 1 · a fact in issue…unless its very existence is itself a fact in issue…

or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.exception 2 · relevant elsewhere…or it is relevant under some other provision (e.g. § 6 — motive).

ExampleA obtains a decree for possession of land against B; B’s son C then murders A. The judgment’s existence is relevant — not to prove the land dispute, but as motive for the murder (via § 6).

✗ Not thisThe general rule is irrelevance. A judgment between other parties does not prove the facts it found — only § 34 (bar), § 35 (in rem) and § 36 (public nature) give judgments that reach beyond the parties. For everything else, the judgment enters only if its existence is a fact in issue, or another section makes it relevant.

the illustrationsTwo that fail, three that pass

In one lineIllustrations (a)(b) show judgments that stay irrelevant; (c)(d)(e) show the two gates — existence as a fact in issue, or relevance under another section.

(a) A’s libel decree against C is irrelevant as between B and C⚠ irrelevantA winning his own libel suit does not prove B’s separate suit.

(b) B’s conviction for stealing the cow is irrelevant as between A and C⚠ irrelevantthe conviction does not bind C, who had bought the cow.

(c) land decree → C murders A: the judgment’s existence is relevant✓ relevant (motive)its existence shows motive for the murder (§ 6).

(d) charged as a previous offender: the previous conviction is relevant✓ fact in issuethe prior conviction is itself a fact in issue.

(e) A’s earlier libel conviction is relevant under section 6✓ relevant (§ 6)it shows motive for the murder now tried.

Example(d): A is charged with theft and with being a previous offender. The earlier conviction is not proving this theft — its very existence is a fact in issue (the enhanced charge), so it comes in.

✗ Not thisIn (a)(b) the old judgment is offered to prove the facts it decided — barred. In (c)(d)(e) it comes in for a different reason (its existence as motive, or as a charged fact) — never to prove the truth of what it found.

Connected provisions

§ 36

IEA 1872, § 43

Carried forward — the residual rule closing the judgments run.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 37: Other judgments, when relevant