Category: Evidentiary Presumptions

ISSUE:

Whether the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted in this case?

Whether the endorsement of the promissory note by Abdul Satar Ahmedbhoy to Kundan Lal Rallaram was supported by bona fide consideration?

RULE:

Under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a negotiable instrument is presumed to be made or endorsed for consideration unless evidence to the contrary is provided.

The burden of rebutting this presumption lies on the party challenging the validity of the instrument, which can be done through direct, circumstantial, or presumptive evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872.

ISSUE:

Whether the investigation was conducted without the authority of law?

Whether the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the Appellant had accepted the sum as a motive or reward should not be drawn unless the prosecution proved that the amount was paid as a bribe?

Whether the presumption was rebutted by the Appellant's explanation that what was paid to him was the return of a loan?

RULE:

Section 114 of the Evidence Act states that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

ISSUE:

Whether the DNA test results could rebut the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the appellant could be absolved of the liability to pay maintenance for a child scientifically proven not to be his biological offspring?

To what extent modern scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, should override the conclusive presumption of legitimacy established under law?

RULE:

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, which can only be rebutted if it is proven that the husband had no access to the wife during the period of conception.

DNA test results, being scientifically accurate, can serve as credible evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 if they conclusively establish the absence of biological paternity.

When there is a conflict between legal presumptions and scientifically proven facts, scientific truth prevails in the interest of justice.

ISSUE:

Whether the husband failure to disclose the conversation preceding his wife’s suicide, combined with allegations of cruelty against him, is sufficient to presume that he abetted the suicide under Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, of 1872?

RULE:

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act permits the court to presume that a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if it is proven that she was subjected to cruelty by them. This presumption, however, is discretionary and not mandatory.

The court must evaluate whether the proven cruelty was of a nature likely to drive the woman to suicide, considering the totality of the circumstances.

Mere proof of cruelty and suicide within seven years is insufficient to establish abetment without a causal link between the two.