9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. 2. Whether the burden of proof in a suit for malicious prosecution was correctly applied by the lower appellate court. 3. Whether the lower appellate court properly assessed the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the defendant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interference with Trial Court's Findings: The defendant-appellant argued that the lower appellate court should not have interfered with the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The trial court had believed the evidence given by the defendant and disbelieved the plaintiff's evidence. The appellate court, however, reassessed the evidence and reached a different conclusion. The appellate court is empowered under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to hear the appeal and arrive at its own conclusions, even if they differ from those of the trial court. The appellate court is not bound by the trial court's findings in the same manner as a second appellate court is bound by the findings of a lower appellate court. The appellate court is allowed to reassess the evidence and come to its own findings, as established in the cases of Bombay Manufacturing Co. v. R. B. Moti Lal Shiv Lal and Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh. 2. Burden of Proof in Malicious Prosecution: The defendant-appellant contended that the lower appellate court incorrectly applied the burden of proof in a suit for malicious prosecution. The burden of proving the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice lies on the plaintiff. The lower appellate court believed that the plaintiff's duty was merely to produce negative evidence and that the defendant's failure to provide reliable evidence meant the plaintiff had met his burden. However, the correct approach, as established in Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Shah and Devi Atma Nand v. Shambhu Lal, requires the plaintiff to prove all four ingredients of malicious prosecution: (1) prosecution by the defendant, (2) termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff, (3) prosecution without reasonable or probable cause, and (4) prosecution actuated by malice. The absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice are separate elements that both need to be proved by the plaintiff. 3. Assessment of Evidence: The lower appellate court failed to properly scrutinize the evidence presented by the plaintiff. While the court noted that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove a negative fact, it concluded that the plaintiff's denial of the incident was sufficient to shift the burden to the defendant. The correct approach requires the court to scrutinize the plaintiff's evidence to determine its reliability. The plaintiff must provide reliable and credible evidence to prove that the incident did not occur. The lower appellate court did not adequately address the trial court's objections regarding the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence. It merely found the defendant's evidence to be unreliable and decreed the suit without properly weighing the plaintiff's evidence. This approach is contrary to the principles established in Abrath v. North Eastern Rly. Co., where it was emphasized that the burden of proof in a malicious prosecution case remains on the plaintiff to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice. Conclusion: The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside. The case was remanded to the lower appellate court with instructions to reassess the evidence presented by the plaintiff and determine whether it is reliable enough to establish that the incident alleged in the defendant's complaint did not occur. If the plaintiff's evidence is found to be reliable, the plaintiff will succeed; otherwise, the suit will be dismissed. The lower appellate court must readmit the appeal to its original number and rehear it in accordance with the observations made and the law. Costs will abide by the ultimate result.
|
