Section 36 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 35

Section 36 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 35

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35 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.

Illustrations

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 36

Section 36 establishes that previous judgments, orders, or decrees are relevant to bar a second suit or trial when they support a plea of res judicata in civil matters or autrefois acquit / convict in criminal proceedings.

Bar to Subsequent Trial: Applies where the existence of a prior decree prevents a court from taking cognizance under Section 11 CPC or Section 300 CrPC / Section 257 BNSS.
Constitutional Double Jeopardy: Translates Article 20(2) of the Constitution into statutory evidentiary practice by admitting prior judgment rolls.
Identity of Cause & Accusation: Requires showing that the earlier adjudication was on merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of A.P. v. Kokkiligada Meerayya (1969) 1 SCC 161: The Supreme Court held that the rule of issue estoppel and autrefois acquit bars the prosecution from introducing evidence to contradict a finding of fact recorded in a final prior acquittal.
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415): Affirmed that an order of acquittal is conclusive between the parties and cannot be challenged or circumvented in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In quashing petitions under Section 528 BNSS or preliminary objections in civil suits, file certified copies of the prior judgment and framing of issues/charges to establish strict identity of parties and subject-matter.