Section 37 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Judgments, Etc., Other Than Those Mentioned In Sections 34, 35 And 36 When Relevant.

Code

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.

 Explanation

Section 37 lays down a general rule that judgments, orders, or decrees not covered under Sections 34, 35, or 36 are irrelevant unless:

• Their existence itself is a fact in issue, or
• They are made relevant under another provision of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (e.g., motive under Section 6).

This ensures that unrelated judicial decisions are not misused in subsequent or unrelated proceedings.

Illustration Breakdown

Let’s briefly understand the use cases:

• (a)  Judgment between A and C is irrelevant in a case between B and C – shows independence of causes of action.
• (b) C’s liability cannot be assumed from B’s conviction – judgment not binding on third party.
• (c)  Motive – the judgment is relevant because it explains why C committed the murder.
• (d)  Prior conviction is itself a fact in issue – hence relevant.
• (e)  Past conviction shows motive under Section 6 – admissible.

 Common Questions and Answers

1. Are all judgments irrelevant under Section 37?

No. Only those not covered under Sections 34, 35, or 36, and which do not satisfy other relevancy conditions.

2. Can a past conviction be used against someone?

Yes, if it is a fact in issue (e.g., proving repeat offence) or shows motive (as per Section 6).

3. What if a previous judgment indirectly relates to the case?

It must be tied to a relevant fact, motive, or legal issue — otherwise, it remains inadmissible.