A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. The cow had been sold by B to C. A brings a suit against C for recovery of the cow and produces the judgment against B in support of his claim. Is the judgment relevant? Give reasons for your answer.

Question: A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. The cow had been sold by B to C. A brings a suit against C for recovery of the cow and produces the judgment against B in support of his claim. Is the judgment relevant? Give reasons for your answer. [W.B.J.S. 1998, U.P.A.P.O., 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. The cow had been sold by B to C. A brings a suit against C for recovery of the cow and produces the judgment against B in support of his claim. Is the judgment relevant? Give reasons for your answer.]

Answer

Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act talks about “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.”

Section 43 lays down a general rule that all judgments, decrees and orders not mentioned under Sections 40 to 42, are irrelevant. To this general rule of exclusion, the section provides two exceptions. The judgments, decrees or orders not relevant under the three preceding sections, are relevant:

1. when the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue;
2. when the judgment, decree or order is relevant under some other provisions of the Act.

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. Thus, if a person is murdered in consequence of a judgment, the judgment being a cause or motive of the murder will be a relevant fact.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from the illustration (c) appended to section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the case, 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. The reason is that a finding of fact arrived at on the evidence in one case is not evidence of that fact in another case between different parties. In the previous case between A and B, C was not a proper party and was not even heard to decide the matter. Hence, the decision of the former case will not be relevant in the subsequent suit which involves new parties i.e. A and C.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X