What Is BSA Section 37?

Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 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 that 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.

Brefe Detail

Section 37 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states that judgments, orders, or decrees not covered in sections 34, 35, and 36 are generally irrelevant unless they are a fact in issue or relevant under another provision of the law. The section provides clarity on when certain judgments can be considered relevant in legal proceedings.

Question & Answers

Q1: When are judgments, orders, or decrees considered irrelevant under Section 37?

A1: They are considered 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.

Q2: Can you give an example of an irrelevant judgment in this context?

A2: Yes, if A obtains a decree against C for damages in a libel case, that judgment is irrelevant in a separate case between B and C regarding the same libel.

Q3: What is one situation where a judgment is considered relevant?

A3: A judgment is relevant when it shows motive for a crime, such as in the case where C murders A after A obtains a decree for possession of land against B.

Q4: How does a previous conviction relate to a current charge?

A4: A previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue when a person is charged with a similar offense, such as theft.

Example

A and B both sue C for libel, but A's decree against C is irrelevant in B's case since it does not establish anything about B's claim.

If A is convicted of libel against B, this conviction becomes relevant if A is later tried for murder, as it may indicate motive.

Summary

Section 37 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, clarifies the relevance of judgments, orders, or decrees not included in previous sections. It emphasizes that such judgments are typically irrelevant unless they are directly related to the facts of a case or relevant under other legal provisions, helping to streamline the legal process by focusing on pertinent information.