Presumption of facts: relevance of Section 110-114 of the Indian Evidence Act
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
43/60
- The presumption of certain facts by the Courts in the absence of direct evidence of an offence has been an accepted practice. However certain principles guide such exercise of such presumption. The presumption must be an inference of fact drawn from another proved fact that is likely to flow as a common course of natural events, human conduct and public/private business vis-a- vis the facts. The Courts in drawing such presumption must look at the facts from an angle of common sense and common experience of man.
- The Hon'ble Apex Court in Limbaji and Ors v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 10 SCC 340 observed that:
"9. ...A presumption of fact is a type of circumstantial evidence which in the absence of direct evidence becomes a valuable tool in the hands of the Court to reach the truth without unduly diluting the presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused which is the foundation of our Criminal Law. It is an inference of fact drawn from another proved fact taking due note of common experience and common course of events. Holmes J. in Greer v. US [245 USR 559] remarked "a presumption upon a matter of fact, when it is not merely a disguise for some other principle, means that common experience shows the fact to be so generally true that courts may notice the truth" Section
114 enjoins: "the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case." Having due regard to the germane considerations set out in the Section, certain presumptions which the Court can draw are illustratively set out. It is obvious that they are not exhaustive or comprehensive. The
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
44/60
presumption under Section 114 is, of course, rebuttable. When once the presumption is drawn, the duty of producing evidence to the contra so as to rebut the presumption is cast on the party who is subjected to the rigour of that presumption. Before drawing the presumption as to the existence of a fact on which there is no direct evidence, the facts of the particular case should remain uppermost in the mind of the Judge.These facts should be looked into from the angle of common sense, common experience of men and matters and then a conscious decision has to be arrived at whether to draw the presumption or not.” (emphasis supplied)
- In State of A.P. v. Vasudeva Rao (2004) 9 SCC 319, reiterating the principles for presumption, noted a word of caution in the judicial exercise of presumption, holding that:
"17. …Law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 18. ...While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. 19.
...Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. This Court has indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 7 SCC 337 "A presumption can be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
45/60
drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning"."
(emphasis supplied)
- Applying the aforesaid principles, can it be said that the confessional statement led to discovery of any new fact. Well, there is nothing on record to establish the same. Even in Court, Police Officer does not reveal having noticed the injuries on the body of the accused. No medical examination was conducted. Neither the accused was confronted nor any such fact, the confessional statement, put to any one of the witnesses. In any event, the veracity of such statement, more so in the absence of any independent person is extremely doubtful, if not a concoction to support the prosecution case. As such, the statement, in view of the principles enunciated discussed supra, is wholly inadmissible, having no evidentiary value in law.
WordPress.com
