Published on: 14 July 2023 at 01:00 IST
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi V. Union of India (2011)
High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who has a responsibility to produce an evidence before the Hon’ble Court but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. It is held that it is a responsibility of a person under provision of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to provide evidence to the fact or position as asserted by him.
24. So, from Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of AW 1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants.
The court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra