Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SECTION 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - This is a residuary provision to the Section
41 and 42. The general law is that a judgement of competent court or not obtained by fraud
collision would only be admissible in evidence if it fails within the perview of the above
chapters. In other words if a judgement not inter partes would not admissible unless it is
admissible under some provision of the evidence act.if the judgement is not relevant under the
above chapters it would not be relevant unless the existence of such judgement, order or decree
is a fact in issue or relevant under some other provisions of this act.1
The simple and precise the need of this section arises from the first kind of principle Original
Precedents which the court has never been considered a previous case law and the judge has to
use his or her own discretion in reaching a final judgement using an approach of Reasoning of
Analogy and hence they will find a similar principle nearby to the case they are dealing which
also had the similar principles.2
Admissibility
A judgement in a criminal case is admissible to show what order was made to the dispute were,
what the land in dispute was and who was held entitled to possession.3 In subsequent
proceedings for succession, the judgement of the criminal court is only relevant to show that the
claimant was convicted and sentenced under s. 304 PC.
To have the effect of res judicata, a judgement inter parties alone can be admitted in evidence,
but for other purposes where judgements are sought to be used to show the conduct of the
parties, or show particular instances of the exercise of a right, or admissions made by ancestors,
or how the property was dealt with previously, they may be used under sec. 11 or 13 as
exceptions recognized under this section, as relevant evidence. This is to say their existence
though not their correctness, might be proved. Except where they are judgements in rem or
where they relate to public matters, judgements not inter partes have always held to be not res
judicata, but they cannot be wholly excluded for other purposes in so far as they explain the
nature of possession, or throw light on the motives or conduct of parties or identify property.4
Judgements of criminal cases cannot be relied on a single binding of a civil action. Equally the
findings on civil proceeding are not binding on a subsequent prosecution found upon the same or
similar allegations6. The judgement in the criminal court would not be relevant in the claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgement in the claim relevant in the claim petition
would not not be relevant in the criminal case for establishing the guilt of the accused.7 Under the
section 43, evidence Act, the judgement of the criminal court can be used only to establish the
fact that an acquittal has taken place as a fact in issue in the subsequent civil suit. The civil suit
court cannot take into consideration the grounds upon which the acquittal was based. The
judgement of a criminal court in civil proceedings will only have limited application viz. inter
alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminology
proceedings.8
The ruling of the Privy Counsel in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad has been applied by the
supreme court in K.G. Premshanker vs Inspector of police. In this case a civil proceeding suit for
the damages was also filed against the person accused in a criminal proceeding. The suit was
dismissed.
A settlement in civil proceeding for recovery of a loan was held to be not of much
relevance in a subsequent criminal proceeding arising out of the same cause. The court said that a
civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously over the same Cause of Action.
Judgements Of The Trial Court Under Writ Jurisdiction under sections 42,43 and 44.9
Now this point no longer res integra that a decision rendered by the high court in writ
petition between the same parties is binding them. In view of section 42 and 43 of the evidence
Act, 1872 respondents can get rid of that judgement and order only under section 24 by showing
that the court was not competent to render the judgement or pass the order. If there being so
much infirmity then the decision of the high court in the writ jurisdiction would operate as res
judicata and respondents could not wriggle out of it. Further the high court being court of record,
its judgements, ratio and dictum are binding even over subordinate judiciary and also it is
binding in high court as precedent.10