Sec 43 of evidence act
Anil Kumar kamboj Delhi M-9650
(Querist) 30 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
In the following situations whether the previous judgment is relevent or not..........
A prosecutes B for adultery committed with his wife C . B punished for the said offence.later a suit is instituted between A and C in which c claimed that she is never married with A .here ,is previous judgment is relevant ? pls gives any citation on the said issues .
A V Vishal
(Expert) 30 December 2011
Is the query a figment of your imagination?
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 30 December 2011
But what C was doing when B was prosecuted?
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 30 December 2011
I am of the view that C wants to kill two birds with one stone.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 30 December 2011
Seems to be an illustration from a text book of Evidence Act.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Dear Mr Kumbhaj
The basic principle is that 'Judgments are not relevant to the persons not party to the judgment' there are two exceptions stated in s 40 and 41 of Indian Evidence Act. In case where plea of res judicata applicable or where the judement is inrem they are relevant. A Judgment is also relevant where it proves a custom as per section 42.
The example given below section 43 which is your question appears a hard thing to digest but it is true. (and most of us could not digest it)
The judgment of previous conviction to B is of no use here as it is nither required for resjudicata purpose nor it is jugement in rem. further it is not required to prove autrefois convict or autrefois acquit so the conviction of B may be wrong but not relevant here. even principle of Valeat quantum valere potest not applicable.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 31 December 2011
1. The query is not a figmnet of imagination but illustration (b) to S. 43 of IE Act.
2. As a rule, judgment delivered in a criminal case is not admissible in civil case and vice versa. This is so even in the example given in the query; though the standard of proof is much higher in criminal case of adultery, the civil case regarding adultery as a ground of divorce has to bedecided on its own merits.
3. The above principle is laid down not only in the illustration to S. 43, but also in a host of judicial pronouncements in India and England.In UK, it is called "whip-sawing' the accused.
Rajesh kumar singh
(Expert) 31 December 2011
The judgment against B is irrelevant. The Indian Evidence Act,1872
43. Judgment etc., other than those mentioned in Section 40 to 42 when relevant -
Judgments, orders or decrees other then 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.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 31 December 2011
a fiagement of your imagination
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 01 January 2012
Weird query and I agree it might be a figment of imagination.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 04 January 2012
evidently an illustration from the text book of Indian Evidence Act
R Trivedi
(Expert) 16 January 2012
Without commenting on B's relation with C, it clearly indicates that B was falsely implicated under S43. In subsequent case it may not go against C but certainly it can give lot of relief and compensation to B.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 21 November 2012
Questioner is oversmart he is asking abt illustration given under section 43 of evidence act and by putting query here he is testing knowledge of our experts......
illustration b of section 43:
(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. CC says that she never was A's wife.
The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 22 November 2012
The query is taken from books on Evidence. For onstance, see my book on Indian Evidence Act published by Butterworths, under S. 43. And also testing our knowledge on Law of Evidence.Better to close the discussion.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 22 November 2012
If it is truly a prblem,then my answer is 'NO'
