Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant
Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 37, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 43 Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 43, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The principle of res judicata and the concept of abuse of process of law do not operate to bar continuation of a civil suit merely because the accused has been acquitted in a related criminal proceeding arising from the same transaction. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, even if it results in acquittal, does not have binding effect on a parallel civil suit as the standards of proof, burden of proof, causes of action, and legal issues are fundamentally different between criminal and civil proceedings. The applicability of reverse burden provisions and statutory presumptions in criminal law must be strictly interpreted and applied with due regard to the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights of the accused, whereas in civil proceedings no such strict compliance is required. A creditor has the right to pursue both criminal and civil remedies concurrently, and the continuation of such proceedings is neither barred by law nor constitutes an abuse of process, provided the civil suit was not barred at the time of its filing.
On this section: Provides that judgments other than those mentioned in Sections 40-42 are irrelevant unless the existence of the judgment itself is a fact in issue or relevant under other provisions. The court emphasized that criminal judgments fall under this category in civil suits.
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 43, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Existence of facts; applied to hold that certified copy of Railway Court order must be accepted as existing fact
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 37
What have the courts held on Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra (05 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 43, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides that judgments other than those mentioned in Sections 40-42 are irrelevant unless the existence of the judgment itself is a fact in issue or relevant under other provisions. The court emphasized that criminal judgments fall under this category in civil suits. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 37, section 37 BSA, section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type scouts 37. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra (05 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 6 (Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct), section 34 (Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial), section 35 (Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction), section 36 (Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 35), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IEA 43 (Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 37, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.