Section 43 IEA: Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 43 IEA at a Glance
Section 43 IEA deals with judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant. From 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 37 BSA.
Section 43 IEA Bare Act Text
43. 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.
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.
Source: Section 43, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 43 IEA in Simple Words
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stops parties from using most earlier court decisions in a separate case. Judgments, orders and decrees (formal court decisions in a suit) are irrelevant (not usable as proof) outside specific exceptions.
Section 43 IEA leaves untouched the decisions covered by Sections 40, 41 and 42 IEA. Section 40 IEA covers decisions that legally bar a court from taking cognizance (formal notice) of a suit or conducting a trial. Section 41 IEA covers specified judgments in probate and similar jurisdiction. Section 42 IEA covers decisions on public matters connected to the enquiry, though they are not final proof.
Any other decision is relevant if its existence is a fact in issue (a main fact the court must decide), such as a prior theft conviction included in a charge. It is also relevant if another rule in the Act makes it relevant, such as showing motive for murder under Section 8 IEA, which covers motive, preparation and conduct.
Otherwise, a decision in an earlier case cannot be used in a separate dispute. A conviction for stealing a cow, an adultery conviction, or a libel decree (a decision on a written defamatory statement) is irrelevant against another party in a later case.
When Section 43 IEA Applies
- Applies when a party in a proceeding seeks to rely on a court judgment, order or decree.
- Applies where the judgment, order or decree does not fall under Sections 40, 41 and 42 IEA.
- Allows the decision to be proved when its existence is itself a fact in issue in the proceeding.
- Allows the decision to be proved when its existence is relevant under another rule in the Act, such as Section 8 IEA on motive.
Example of Section 43 IEA
When Section 43 IEA Does Not Apply
- The rule of irrelevance does not apply to judgments, orders or decrees covered by Sections 40, 41 and 42 IEA.
- The rule of irrelevance does not apply when the existence of that decision is itself a fact in issue.
- The rule of irrelevance does not apply when the existence of that decision is relevant under another rule in the Act.
Section 43 IEA in the BSA
Section 43 IEA is now covered under Section 37 BSA.
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 37 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. No substantive change to the rule. The illustration on a prosecution for adultery was removed, the remaining illustrations were re-lettered, and the section numbers follow the BSA.
View detailed comparison (IEA 43 vs BSA 37) →FAQs on Section 43 IEA
What is Section 43 IEA?▼
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that judgments, orders and decrees outside Sections 40, 41 and 42 IEA are irrelevant. An earlier decision can be proved only when its existence is itself a fact in issue, or when another rule in the Act makes it relevant.
Can a criminal conviction against a seller be used against a buyer in a later civil suit under Section 43 IEA?▼
No. Under Section 43 IEA, a theft conviction against a seller is irrelevant in a later suit against the buyer. The claim against the buyer must be proved independently.
Can an earlier judgment be proved under Section 43 IEA to show motive for an offence?▼
Yes. Under Section 43 IEA, the existence of an earlier judgment or decree is relevant when it shows motive for a crime under Section 8 IEA. For example, a prior land decree or libel conviction can be proved as the motive for a murder.
Is a previous conviction relevant under Section 43 IEA when the charge includes that conviction?▼
Yes. When an accused person is charged with an offence and also with having a previous conviction, the earlier conviction is a fact in issue. Under Section 43 IEA, that conviction is relevant and can be proved.
What is Section 43 IEA in BSA?▼
Section 37 BSA. Section 43 IEA became Section 37 BSA on 1 July 2024 without changing the legal rule. In Section 37 BSA, the adultery illustration was dropped, the other illustrations were re-lettered, and the cross-references follow the BSA.
Have questions about Section 43 IEA?
Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.
Ask NyayGuru →Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·