TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Abstract - 01
2. Introduction - 02
3. Sections and Cases -

1
 1. ABSTRACT

Abstract- In a scenario where crime has taken place, a chain of event starts right away
which leads to a conclusion that depicts what one calls a judgement. Judgement. It is a
decision which separates the wrongful one from the one who is innocent. With a rising
crime rate and piling court cases a proper judgement is very relevant as it makes people
have faith in the justice system thus bringing about a sense of relief in their lives as to what
has to be done when your rights have been violated or you have been wronged. A relevant
judgement holds a value and hence is important in setting out an example for the society
out there.In the field of law, a judgement is a decision given by a court regarding the duties
or liabilities that a party carries with itself during a legal action or a legal court proceeding.
Judgements are relevant as they provide out the explanation of the court on why the court
decided to make a particular court order. Relevant judgements are those which not only
serve as a mean of justice but create a path for other judgements to follow up if the
upcoming or future cases consist of similar crime scenarios or absolute ditto scenarios.
Section 40 to Section 44 of The Evidence Act, 1872 lays down provisions relating to
judgements of the court of justice, when relevant. There have been various influential
landmark judgements over the years which have shaped the legal system as a whole. The
relevancy of these judgements and its application in various other cases has shown the legal
system the right door. This paper contains information regarding Judgement when
relevant and throws light upon how this relevancy is the key to providing the citizens the
true essence of justice.

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

In a world where new crimes are formed on a daily basis, judgements hold an importance as to
what should have been done and plays the example of what unjust act should not have been
committed in the first place. These judgements then turn out to be so relevant and impactful that
they serve as the backbone of other cases which come at the doorstep of the courts in the coming
years. What is more significant is how this relevancy is the core and life of the very judgement
that it is related to.

Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 lays down provision relating to judgments of
the Court of Justice , when relevant . Sections 40 to 43 deal with the subject of relevancy of
judgments. Judgments are admissible as res judicata under section 40 and as relating to matters
of public nature under section 42. Judgments other than those mention in sections 40, 41 and 42
may relevant under section 43 if their existence is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other
provision. Section 44 lays down not only a rule of law relating to evidence, but also a rule of
procedure . All the above mentioned sections have been discussed below.

3
 2. SECTIONS AND CASES

SECTION 40 – PREBVIOUS JUDGEMENTS RELEVANT TO BAR A SECOND SUIT

OR TRIAL

40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.—The existence of any judgment, order or
decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant
fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit, or to hold such trial.

CASE : P. G. Eshwarappa v. M. Rudrappa [(199)) 6 S.C.C.96] , it was held that the

principles of estoppel or res judicata do not apply when they would contravene some statutory
direction or prohibition . This is something which cannot be overridden or defeated by a previous
judgment between the parties.

CASE : Learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Altaf Ahmed appearing for the respondents
submitted that the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah's case that "the finding recorded
by the criminal Court, stands superseded by the finding recorded by the civil Court and thereby
the finding of the civil Court gets precedence over the finding recorded by the criminal Court" is
against the law laid down by this Court in various decisions. For this, he rightly referred to the
provisions of Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act and submitted that under the Evidence
Act to what extent judgments given in the previous proceedings are relevant is provided and
therefore it would be against the law if it is held that as soon as the judgment and decree is
passed in a civil suit the criminal proceedings are required to be dropped if the suit is decided
against the plaintiff who is the complainant in the criminal proceedings.

4
SECTION 41 - RELEVANCY OF CERETAIN JUDGEMENTS IN PROBE, ETC.,
JURISDICTION.

41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.—A final judgment, order or
decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial admiralty or insolvency
jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which
declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing,
not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such
legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment,
order or decree is conclusive proof— that any legal character, which it confers accrued at the
time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which
it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment,
1[order or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person; 3[order or decree] declares it to
have accrued to that person;" that any legal character which it takes away from any such person
ceased at the time from which such judgment, 1[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or
should cease; 3[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should cease;" and that anything to
which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from
which such judgment, 1[order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property.
3[order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property."

CASE : B . Meenakshi Sundaram v. Kuttimalu (I. L. R. 1958 Ker. 9) , a judgment in rem has
been defined to be a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a
person or thing , or the disposition of a thing ( as distinct from a particular interest in it ) of a
party of the litigation . It is a kind of declaration about the status of a person e.g. , that he is an
insolvent, and is effective against everybody whether he was a party to the proceeding or not .
That is why it will be relevant in every case or proceeding in which the solvency of person is in
question.

According to the section, a judgment in rem dealing with the status or legal character of a person
can be pronounced only by the courts exercising the following kinds of jurisdiction :

 PROBATE JURISDICTION
  MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION
 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
 INSOLVENCY JURISDICTION

It is essential for a judgment under section 41 to be regarded as a judgment in rem that it should
either confer upon or take away from any person any legal character or it should declare the
person to be entitled to any such character , or to be entitled to any specific person , but
absolutely . The judgment is a conclusive proof of the fact that the legal character which it
confers accrued to the person concerned from the date on which the judgment came into
operation . Where the judgment declares a person to be entitled to legal character , it is
conclusive of the fact that the legal character accrued to the person at the time when the
judgment came into operation .

SECTION 42 – RELEVANCY AND EFFECT OF JUDGEMENTS, ORDERS OR

DECREES, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 41

42. Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41, are relevant if they
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. Illustration A sues B for trespass on his land. B
alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a
decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in
which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof
that the right of way exists.

A judgment upon a matter of public nature, for example, a determination that a particular street is
a public highway, is relevant in every case proceeding in which that aspect of the property is
again question. Judgments on such matters are relevant to every case or proceeding in which the
matter is again in question, but shall not be conclusive of the matter. It means that whatever any
such judgment is cited, the party affected by it may lead evidence to the contrary and show that
not all the information was presented before the court when the judgment was pronounced. For
example, a person is prosecuted for trespass upon a land and the complaint is dismissed, the
court holding that public has a right of way over the same land. Subsequently, the landlord
prosecutes another person for trespass over the same land. The earlier judgment will definitely be
relevant, but will not be conclusive of the fact that the right of way exists . This will enable the
landlord to produce further evidence in support of his case.

SECTION 43 – JUDGEMENTS, ETC., OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN

SECTIONS 40 TO 42, WHEN RELEVANT.

43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 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
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 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. 1[(e) A is
charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction
is relevant as a fact in issue.

1
Inserted by act 18 of 1872, S. 4.
(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.]

Evidence can be given of a judgment when the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue
or is fact otherwise relevant to the case . If , for example , a person is murdered in consequence
of a judgment , the judgment being a cause or motive of the murder will be a relevant fact under
section 7 and 8 . Section 43 deals with this matter . The illustration appended to the section
amply show that the existence of a judgment may become relevant under any of the provisions
relating to relevancy running from section 6 to 55 . A judgment may , for example , be relevant
as showing a state of mind ; it may be useful for overthrowing the defence of accident or may , in
circumstances , constitute an evidence of character . Where , for example , a person is prosecuted
for receiving stolen property with knowledge that it was stolen . A previous judgment convicting
him of the same offence will be useful for showing that he had the knowledge of the property in
question being stolen . A judgment may become the cause of or constitute the motive for a fact in
issue and , therefore , may be relevant for that reason .

CASE : Rumi Dhar v . State of W . B . , ( AIR 2009 S . C . 2195 ) , a settlement in a civil

proceeding for recovery of a loan was held to be not of matter relevance in a subsequent criminal
proceeding involving the same matter .

SECTION 44 – FRAUD OR COLLUSION IN OBTAINING JUDGEMENT, OR

INCOMPETENCY OF COURT, MAY BE PROVED
Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.—Any party
to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant
under section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a
Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

The existence of a judgment over a matter which is again in question is a satisfactory piece of
evidence , though , of course , nothing is said about its evidentiary value in the Evidence Act .
The only thing that the Act provides is that whenever a judgment is relevant by reason of any of
the exceptions , its value may be demolished by showing that it was delivered by a court of
incompetent jurisdiction or that it was obtained by fraud or collusion . This amounts to an
indirect assertion that unless the value of a judgment is so demolished , it is valuable as a piece
of evidence . The value of a judgment can be attacked on three different grounds , namely , that

 The judgment was delivered by a court of incompetent jurisdiction , or

 It was obtained by collusion , or
 It was obtained by fraud.
3. CONCLUSION

The chapter of Judgement of Curt of Justice , when relevent from Section 40 to Section
44 based on Doctrine of Res Judicata and Doctrine of autre fois convict, means same
person can not be convicted for the same offense twice. It is also known as doctrine
of double geopardy as contemplated under article 22(ii) of the Indian Constitution.
Section 41 deals with doctrine of judgement in rem, which not only binds the parties and
their representatives to it, but also are binding against the whole world. Section 42
provides that judgements, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40 and
Section 41 are admissible if they relate to matters of public nature relevant to inquiry.
Section 43 provides that judgements orders or decrees other than those mentioned in
Section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant and cannot be proved unless the existence of such
judgement, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some provision of this
act. Section 44 provides the procedure for the purpose of getting a judgement annulled on
the ground of want of jurisdiction, fraud and collusion.
 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Website referred:-

1. www.lawfinder.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.orfonline.org
4. www.legalserviceindia.com
5. www.legalcareerpath.com

Books referred:-
 The Indian Evidence Act, Universal Publications, 2019 Edition