Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant. Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, 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 Act. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, 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 Act.
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 adultery with C, A’s wife. B denies that C is A’s wife, but the Court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. C says that she never was A’s wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
(c) 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.
(d) 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. [(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
(f) 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 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.]
Section 43, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 37 Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 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
- s. 8 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
- s. 40 Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
- s. 41 Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction
- s. 42 Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state
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
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… any question regarding stay of any of the proceedings", however, "factum of possibility of conflicting decisions" was noticed by this Court qua civil and criminal proceedings which is a possible and probable consequence of decision taken in two proceedings. 142. We may notice a judgment of this Court dealing with Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, i.e., S.M. Jakati and Anr. Vs. S.M. Borkar and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 282 . This Court in the above case had occasion to consider the relevancy of the effect and consequence of an order passed by Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society in a suit filed for partition of joint family property, …
-
… this Court held that when a civil court finds that the cheque was not supported by valid consideration, the essential ingredient under Section 138 of the NI Act, that the cheque should have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt, is given a go by, and so the judgment of the civil court becomes relevant under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of that judgment read thus: "16. Here the interesting question is whether a criminal court is bound by the decree and judgment passed by a competent civil court taking shelter under S.11 and S.43 of the Indian Evidence Act. 17. In …
-
… It is also pointed out that the judgment of the Magistrate court is dated 12.12.2008 and the impugned award is dated 06.8.2010 and therefore, it is clear that the documents now produced as additional evidence were available at the time of the trial of this case before the Tribunal. As per Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the Evidence Act. 12. It is true that in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 …
Questions about Section 43
What have the courts held on Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra (05 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 43 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 43, section 43 IEA, section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 8 (Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct), section 40 (Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial), section 41 (Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction), section 42 (Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 37 (Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 43, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.