Site navigation

In an earlier prosecution of B for an unrelated offence, the court made an incidental finding that A…

Section 37 makes judgments outside sections 34 to 36 irrelevant unless their existence is in issue or independently relevant. The earlier judgment therefore cannot be used…

Choose your answer

In an earlier prosecution of B for an unrelated offence, the court made an incidental finding that A and C were married. C is later prosecuted for bigamy for marrying B during A’s lifetime. The prosecution offers the earlier judgment solely to prove the marriage between A and C. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, how should the court treat that judgment when deciding whether A and C were married?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

Section 37 makes judgments outside sections 34 to 36 irrelevant unless their existence is in issue or independently relevant.

The earlier judgment therefore cannot be used on these facts to establish that A and C were married.

Option feedback

Option A

Section 37 excludes the earlier judgment on the stated facts. Its existence is neither a fact in issue nor independently relevant.

Option B

The incidental finding in B’s prosecution gives the judgment no independent evidentiary relevance under sections 34–37.

Option C

The prior judgment is from a criminal prosecution for an unrelated offence. It does not fall within section 35’s specified class of judgments that can conclusively establish a legal character or entitlement.

Option D

The prior prosecution was against B. The stated facts give the incidental finding no binding effect against C.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic