Indian Evidence Act
(IEA)
Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant.
Chapter 2: Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section: 43
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 provisions 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 had 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.] [Inserted by Act 3 of 1891, Section 5.]
