TyroCity: Evidence Law Notes

Presumption

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Presumption is an inference, which takes place in the absence of absolute certainty as to truth or falsehood of a fact. In other words, presumption is an inference drawn by the court as to the truth of a particular fact, from other known or proved fact. The presumption has direct relevance with burden of proof. It shifts burden of proof on the other party to prove otherwise against the party in whose favor the presumption exit.

Classification of Presumption:

Presumptions may be classified as follows:

1. Presumption of Law(Shall Presumption):

Sometimes the law defines certain situations to be presumed in a certain way. The law makes such presumption to make our civil life easy and practical. Section 6 of Evidence Act 2031 deals with presumption of law. It’s refutable presumption that means the aggrieved party must prove otherwise against the presumption if he/she is to win the case. As per the Sec.6 of Evidence Act.2031 has categorizes Presumption of law as

2. Presumption of undivided property:

If more than one co-partner is living together , the law presumes that the property is in possession of one of the co-partner is divisible property among other partners equally.

3. Presumption of joint ownership:

If two or more person is in joint possession of any property , the law presumes that each and every person has equal claim over the property.

4. Presumption of genuinity as to public documents:

The law presumes that each and every public document prepared in course of public duty and kept is public record is genuine and accurate a it purports to be. The aggrieved party must prove otherwise to rebut this presumption. Until it is so done the court acts upon it.

5. Presumption of legitimacy:

Any child begotten during lawful wedlock is presumed to be legitimate child of the same couple. Likewise child begotten within 272 days of death of the deceased husband is presumed to be legitimate child of the deceased husband and similarly child begotten within 272 days of divorce is presumed to be legitimate child of divorce.

6. Presumption of genuinity of published and certified document:

If any document purports to publication of any government, or if any document is certified by any public official without his/her authority. The law presumes that such publication or certification is genuine as it purports to be on the face of it.

7. Presumption of genuinity of law or judicial decisions published by foreign government:

If any document which purports to be law or judicial decision is published by foreign government , the law presumes such document to be genuine and accurate. It is taken as evidence on the same presumption. The aggrieved party must bear burden of proof if he/she wants the court to be believe the other way.

Presumption of Fact (May Presumption):

Sometime the law gives option on the court. In such situations the court exercise its prudence and practicality and infers certain facts in favor or disfavor of either party to the litigation . In such situation the aggrieved party must adduce evidence to bring the court in his/her favor. Section 7 of Evidence Act 2031, deals with presumption of fact .The law has specified three situations as follows;

1. Presumption of theft:

If a person is found in possession of stolen property the court may presume that he/she either a thief or a person dealing with stolen property .The court may not presume such fact it is proved that the accused may come across of such property because of his/her nature of business.

2. Presumption of adverse interest:

Any person who is in possession of any document if does not produce before the court when ordered .Court may presume that the document if produced relates to adverse interest of such party. The court presumes this way only when it is prudent to do so.

3. Presumption based on logic and experience:

The court may presume any think which is pertinent to the given situation on the strength of its prudence and experience. Everything cannot be brought and proved before the court. There may be several such situations in which the court presumes certain thing at the proof of some other things.

Mixed Presumption:

Besides presumptions of fact and of law a third category of presumptions is also recognized which is referred to as mixed presumptions of law and fact. They lie on the boundary line between the other two, i.e. and presumptions of fact and presumptions of law. They consist chiefly of certain inferences which from their strength, importance or frequent occurrence and constant recommendations by judges become, in course of time, as familiar to the courts as presumptions of law.

Presumption of law directs the court to presume certain fact mandatory on the given situation . So the court shall presume such fact if the specified situation is before the court .Presumption of fact defers from presumption of law in the sense that presumption of fact is at option of the court itself. The court is not obliged to presume any fact mandatorily under it. It may presume certain fact if it thinks it appropriate in the given situation. Thus it depends upon the perceptions of the court, its prudence and experience. Both of these perceptions are refutable in court proceeding .The aggrieved party must give evidence, if it wants the court think otherwise. Conclusive proof is another type of presumption which is irrefutable.

The law presumes that a child under 10 cannot form guilty mind, the proof of under agedness of 10 years is sufficient to make believe the court that the child is innocent., the aggrieved party can not give evidence that even if the child below 10, he/she did the act maliciously, with ill will or under cruel intention. So conclusive proof is known as fiction of law. It is irrefutable presumption of law. The two types of presumption of law stated in the text of burden of proof are as follows:

Presumption of death: Any person who is not known to his/her close relations for more than 12 years of period is presumed to be dead for the purpose of law.

4. Presumption of ownership:

Any person who is in possession property is presumed to the owner of that property until otherwise proved.Indian Evidence Act 1872 has given wide range of description relating to presumption of the public document and also presumption of fact in sec.79 to 90, which does not differ with the provision mentioned in the Evidence Act 2031.Sec. 90 has stated that any document which is 30 years old and is produced from proper custody .The court regards such document as genuine and the writing and attestation there in is genuine as per the law.

The law presumption relates to burden of proof. Presumptions whether of law or fact are always refutable by the party on the strength of evidence, otherwise it may be the basis of decision.

[Sec.32 of Evidence Act 2031]

Rebuttal of Presumption:

Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2031 states that there are certain facts, which are presumed by the court in favor of either party to the litigation. Presumption of law are those situations in which the law directs the court to presume certain facts on proof of some other facts. The court is obliged to presume as per the direction of law if such situation does not exist. Such situation is listed at the Section 6 of the Evidence Act 2031. The court acts as per the presumption until it is rebutted by the other party.

Similarly, presumption of facts are those situations in which the court acts on option whether to presume certain fact or not. If it does presume , the other party must bear burden of proof to rebut it. Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2031 has laid down such situations.

** Presumption of Ownership:**

Section 33 of the Evidence Act 2031 says that any person who is in possession of property is presumed to be owner of that property. The person rebutting it must bear burden of proof to the same effect. Similarly, Section 110 of Evidence Act 1872 of India lays down that a person in possession of a property is presumed to be the owner. If anybody denies that the possessor is not owner, the burden of proof lies on him/her.

Special procedure relating to examination of witness

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Witnesses are examined in three stages. They are

Examination – in- chief,
Cross- examination and
Re- examination.

Examination-in–chief
At this stage the lawyer are entitled to put such questions which are relevant to the fact in issue. They can not put leading question. Questions, which suggest answers, are regarded as leading questions, whose usual answer would be in yes or no form. However leading question may be asked in the following two situations as

Where the subject matter is beyond controversy and
where the subject matters has already been proved in the court.

Witnesses vary in nature. Some may be talkative; others shy; lawyers must use their skill to bring out facts from the witness, which are relevant and important to their case. The must control talkative witness, while encourage to speak shy – witness.

Cross- examination:
Cross- examination starts after the completion of examination in chief and opponent lawyer has right to cross –examination. At this stage he/she is as liberty to put leading question to the witness. His/her questions may have been designed to test the veracity, credibility and accuracy of the statement deposited by the witness. Exposing his/her bad character may impeach the witness. It is one of the grounds to discredit the witness. Witness may be discredited by showing relationship between him/her and the litigant, by showing his/her interest in between him/her and litigant in the subject matter of case. He/she may be contradicted by presenting statement made by him/her or some other occasion. Cross-examination is double edged weapon which should be wailed with great caution. It is one of the most crucial part of the examination of the witness which may affect the out come of the case. According to Philip Wendel, it is double-edged weapon, if you know to wield, it helps to cut enemy’s neck. Otherwise, it cuts one’s own hand. When a witness is cross-examined, he/she may be asked any question which tends:

to testify his/her veracity (correctness)
to discover, who he/she is and what is his/her position and
to shakes his/her moral character

Re-examination:
After the completion of cross-examination the first presenting party has right to reexamination but he/she can not ask questions on new subject matter. He/she must be limited to the impact of cross-examination. He/she should try to make thinks correct which has been distorted in cross-examination. He/she can not ask leading question in re-examination except in the following situations;

If not objected by the adverse party or
With the permission of the court or
Already sufficiently proved matter (undisputed)

The other adverse party may further re-cross examine the witness.

Statement on the spot

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Statement made before or after the incident, that is called statement on the spot. Section 10 of Evidence Act 2031 states that “Anything said or done spontaneously in any incidence may be given in evidence”.

Such type evidence also known as statement made as a part of transaction.

As per the Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 has made similar provision. It is also known as res jestae. Such statement, in order to be admissible must be made spontaneously with the incidence. It should not be narrative in style and should avoid concoction of evidence.

Who can make such statement?

Any person who has observed the incidence or who has suffered the incidence, may make such expressions and person who observed or heard it may give evidence.

Rationality:

Any person who has spoken anything exhibiting his/her personal feeling through bodily gesture may be given in evidence by a person who has come across of him/her. The principle is that such expressions are less likely to be false.

Estoppels: Definition

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The expression ‘Estoppel ‘is derived from the French word ‘Estoup’ which means “shut the mouth”. When a person tells us something, we generally hear him/her .If he/she says something different or contradicting, we would not hear any more and contradict such statement .Otherwise,we shall comply with it. a person by declaration (act or omission) makes/induces another to believe a thing, can not deny its truth subsequently. The other person cannot be stopped from proceeding upon such declaration. Estoppel is a rule of evidence, by which a person is not allowed to plead the contrary of a fact or state of things, which he/she has formally asserted as existing.

As per the Sec.34 of Evidence Act 2031,”any body who represents to other by word or by writing or by conduct any fact which the other party believes on it and works upon it, the first party is stopped from denying the fact in the suit that follows.”Similarly Sec.115 of Evidence Act 1872,embodies the principle of estoppels. It runs as follows, when one person has, by his declaration, act, or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe, neither he/she nor his/her representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself/herself and such person or his/her representative, to deny the truth of the thing.

Burden of proving specific fact

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2031 says that if any law has laid down any such provision specifying that certain facts are to be proved by the certain party in the given situation, the same holds good if such situation does arise. Such as , in trafficking offence information given by the victim, the law has placed onus of proof on the accused to show that the information was untruth. In Narcotic Drugs case the person who is found in possession of such drug is presumed to be guilty the law has laid down that onus of proof lies on him/her to show his/her innocence. Similarly in corruption charge if a person is living at such standard , which is lawful income does not allow, the law has placed onus of proof on him/her to show that the property earned by him/her was through lawful means. In other cases the party making special plea must prove it on his/her own responsibility. Such as if any person pleads defense of alibi, he /she must prove it by himself/herself.

Meaning, Nature & Scope of Law of Evidence

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The word ‘evidence “is derived from the Latin word evider, which means to show clearly; to make clear to the sight; to discover clearly; to make plainly certain ; to ascertain ; to prove. So evidence is about proving or disproving facts in issue, the means by which such facts come to be proved or disproved.

Black’s Law Dictionary has defined the evidence as something including testimony documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.E.g.the bloody glove is the key piece of evidence for the prosecution .Evidence is the demonstration of a fact , it signifies that which demonstrates makes clear or ascertains the truth of the very fact or p0int in issue.

Moonir states that “The term evidence in its legal and general acceptation includes all means by which alleged fact is proved or disproved to the satisfaction of the court”.

Phipson states that –Evidence means the testimony whether oral, documentary ,real which may be legally received in order to proved or disproved some fact in issue”.

As per the Indian Evidence Act,1892 Evidence means;

All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witness in relation to matter of fact under enquiry such statements are called oral evidence.
All documents produced for the inspection of the court, such documents are called documentary evidence.

Black stone says that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertain the truth of facts or points in issue either or one side or other .

Evidence Act of Nepal 2031 does not define about the meaning or definition of evidence.

In conclusion evidence means to prove or disprove, fact in issue is evidence and in another word it called relevant fact.

General principle of the law of evidence:

The evolution of evidence law is based on certain basic principles . These are knowing as “five principles” as

Best evidence must be produced in all cases: Where there is possibility of availability of best evidence the court insist on its production. The court would not consider other inferior evidence . Direct evidence is regarded as best evidence.
Hearsay is no evidence: Generally hearsay evidence is discarded in the trial , where there is possibility of availability of direct evidence. So it is the negative expression of the first principle state above. There are several exceptions to this rule.
He who sets the law in motion must establish his case himself: The rule concerns with burden of proof .The Prosecution in criminal proceeding and the Plaintiff in civil proceeding must establish his case by evidence before hearing the other party.
In criminal proceeding guilt must be proved beyond the reasonable doubt .Where there is doubt benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
In civil proceeding the case may be adjudicated on balance of probability: The party wins the case who is able to adduce more evidence compare to his opponent.

Nature and scope:

Evidence law is generally used in court. Its scope is very much high and broad. Generally it comes to use in two sectors as Judicial and Quasi Judicial.

Judicial Sector:

1. In civil case: Law of evidence is playing vital role. If Plaintiff comes to court and ask for Justice then he/she shall give evidence. If can not able to produce evidence , then he/she lost his/her case. In other hand if Plaintiff produced evidence against the defendant then defendant shall also produce his/her evidence against plaintiff.

2. In criminal case: Law of evidence playing most important role in criminal case as well as civil case. If anyone frames charge-sheet against anyone, the framer shall produce evidence.If someone takes plea of innocent then he/she shall produce evidence of innocence.

Quasi Judicial Sector:

Administrator has jurisdiction to see certain case. As per the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007(2063) Article …. Called them Judicial Institutions. They have to follow due process of law; it means evidence law is necessary them too.

Confession

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

A confession is a statement implicating him/her that the crime in question or alternatively he/she must have admitted all real relevant facts which are connected with the crime under consideration. In the case of HMG. VS. Jimidar Kurmi Supreme Court of Nepal has made an observation that If the accused has confessed his guilt before the police voluntarily without exhibiting any resistance it may be taken as evidence.

As per Sir James Stephen ‘a confession made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he/she committed the crime. Confession are special form of admissions. Thus it is popularly said that “All confession are Admission, but all Admission are not Confession.”

It is a rule of universal law that’ a person may convicted on the basis of his/her confession made in judicial proceeding. The underlying principle is enshrined in two Latin Maxims as stated below:

1. Confessio in Judicio Omini Probation Major Est:
It means confession is judicial proceeding is greater than any other proof.

2. Confessio Facta in Judicio Est Plena Probatio:
It means confession is absolute proof.

Indian Supreme Court has made remarkable decision in the case of “Palka Narayan Swami vs. Emperor “that a statement made by an accused which must either admits in terms of offence or any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. It means that confession s the kind of admission which refers to the acceptance of all the facts that constitute the offence. The expression ‘confession ‘ means a statement made by an accused admitting his/her guilt .It is an admission or acknowledgement to commission of an offence.

Classification of Confession:

Confession can be divided in two categories:

Judicial confession
Extra judicial confession.

Judicial confession:
Confession made before the court is judicial confession .Guilty plea in plea bargaining is judicial confession. The court relies upon it unless there are reasonable doubts to it.

Extra Judicial confession:
Confession made by the accused before somebody outside the court. Such person may be the police, person in authority, friends, neighbors or others. As to police and person in authority the conditions on what ground confession is admissible has already been discussed above so far as the other persons are concerned confession can be taken as evidence if the court is of the opinion that it is voluntarily and free from the influence of torture. In Nepalese practice the prosecution has pay little attention on this point and are very rare instances in which such persons like friends or neighbors produced in the court to give evidence against the accused.

Generally, Nepalese court accepts, confession made before the police if it is of the opinion that it is made voluntarily .If the courts find proof of torture, against the accused it has always rejected the confession to be taken in evidence. But in India confession made before the police is inadmissible at all cost. Even confession made during police custody is inadmissible.

Legality of Confession:

Confession, whether it is judicial or extra-judicial, must be clear and unequivocal. No reliance can be placed on confessions, which are in general or vague terms. The judicial confession of an accused is good evidence and he/her can be convicted on the strength of it. Law does not require that a confession must be corroborated before it can be acted upon. It is the duty of the court to decide whether it believes a confession or not. The Evidence Act 2031, provides for confessions to be an important part of the evidence to convict the accused provided, however, that is obtained without use of torture or fear or undue influence. The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 guarantees protection to every individual against physical or mental torture during detention for investigation and such protection include the right against self-incrimination.

Confession is relevant only if it is made by the accused voluntarily without being influenced by inducement, threat or promise of any kind. According to sec. 9(2) of evidence Act 2031 confession is relevant if it is proved as follows:

He must have made it in his consciousness.
He must not have been influenced with inducement, threat or promise from person under authority.
He must not have nor made it under the pressure of torture to himself or somebody else.
He must have made it in his consciousness:
That voluntariness is the essence of confession and person in authority denotes those persons who have legal right to persecute the offender .Therefore , it includes police, victim of the crime, public officials who are vested with the right of investigation of the crime .In the case of Bir Bahadur vs. Padan Lal Supreme court of Nepal has observed that “If any accused confesses his guilty before the police as well as in the court, the claim that he was tortured to extract confession in the police cannot be entertained.”
He must not having influenced with inducement , threat or promise from person under authority: A confession to be admissible in evidence ; it must be free and voluntary. If it proceeds from remorse and a desire to make reparation for crime, it is admissible. A confession made by an accused in criminal proceeding is irrelevant ,if it is caused by any inducement, threat or promise.
He must not have nor made it under the pressure or torture of himself or somebody:

Record of the statement of Suspect:

Interrogation of the arrested person starts after the arrest takes place. As the State Case Act [2049] requires the interrogation be carried out in presence of the government attorney.

The statement of the detainee amounting to confession forms a good evidence for conviction in Nepal, provided that it has not been extracted by use of force, coercion, inducement or torture or inhuman treatment. But in fact the entire Nepalese criminal justice system is based on confession. In Nepal more than 80% criminal cases adjudicated from the court under the basis of confession.

The confession and the admission are not the same thing .Evidence Act 2031 of Nepal neither talk about definition or differentiation of both. But Indian Evidence Act 1872 has mentioned both term confession and admission and also clarified these two terms. As a source of evidence , admission and confession are different things and they have different evidential values. To accept certain fact relating to the crime can not be counted as confession. In the case of Miss Marshakali Kaski on behalf of Jefrelong vs.Tribhuwan Airport and others made land mark observation stating that ‘accepting certain fact of the case ‘ is not confession. Similarly in the case of State vs. Porter, U.S.Supreme Court held that establishment of crime depends upon other facts and conditions. Hence , in admission , the conviction of crime may or may not be include. Learned people have symbolized that statement is ‘Genus’ admission is ‘Species ‘and confession is sub-species.

However , the context is different in the British law.Britain, there is no differentiation between admission and confession. They only recognized the difference in words. The Section 9 of British Evidence Act,1967 has mentioned confession as the evidence. In this context ,Walker said that ‘the distinction between admission and confession largely one of terminology .The Evidence Act 2031, of Nepal is not clear regarding confession and admission .Neither it has mentioned the terms confession and admission nor does it clearly make any demarcation between them. Thought , the Act seems too follow British view , the judicial interpretation follows Indian view. It is because the Evidence Act , 2031 has treated both confession and admission as the single term, i.e. statement made by party to the litigation .So the legal aspect often creates confusion which ultimately obstruct delivering of justice.

[1] HMG vs. Jimidar Kurmi NKP2027 P.61).

[2] AIR ,1939, P.47

[3] The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Sec.25 and 26

[4] NKP 2021, P.182

[5] Analysis and Reform of the Criminal Justice System in Nepal-CeLLRd, 2057

[6] NKP 2034, P.138

[7] State vs.Porter, 32/135,Wigmore ,f.821

[8]Prakash Washti, Evidence Law,4th edition,2053(Kathmandu, Paribas Prakashan), p.122

Types of estoppels

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

We may categories estoppels as follows:

1. Estoppel by Record:

It refers to judgment or public records, which are believed to be true. A person who acts in pursuance of judgment or records cannot be estopped.

2. Estoppel by Deed:

It means stopped by an agreement .When a person enters into an agreement and his/her statement is furnished their in , he/she shall not be permitted to deny his/her statement.

3. Estoppel by Conduct (Estoppel in Pais):

When a person , by acts or words or deeds induces another person to believe the existence of the thing and make him/her to act upon it, he/she is stopped from denying the existence of such facts.

4. Promissory Estoppel:

The rule of “Promissory Estoppel” is recognized by the court of equity in England. It is also known as ‘Requisite Estoppel ‘ or ‘New Estoppel.’ It does not come within the meaning of sec.34 of Evidence Act 2031.It relates with future promise , where a person makes a promise to another thereby induces him/her to do an act to alter his/her position; the person promise is stopped from denying the truth of that promise. In the case of M.P.Sugar Mills vs. State of UP,Indian Supreme Court has Evolved the concept of promissory estoppels in the first time in India.

Estoppel is rule of civil actions. It has no application in criminal proceedings and also does not operate in the question of law, which is where there is law everybody should act as per the law. Ple of estoppel does not count in such situation but admission has close relevance with estoppel. Estoppel is not a piece of evidence rather it is a procedure to stop the other party making contradictions. It is one of the important procedures, which has vital effect in any court proceedings.

Facts recorded in book of account

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Any books of account, which is regularly kept may be taken as a evidence. As per the Section 14 of Evidence Act 2031”any books of account regularly kept or prepared by any office or authority may be taken as evidence’.

The principle is that such account is less likely fabricated and if any false entry is made that can easily be detected.

Importance of cross-examination

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Cross-examination is one of the important process of purify the truth in the case and it plays a vital role to differentiate true or false. Cross-examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purposes of testing the veracity of witness and the accuracy and completeness of the story. It is entrusted to the hands of the counsel in the confidence that it will be used with discretion, and with due regards to assistance to be rendered by it to the court, not forgetting at the same time the burden that is imposed on the witness.

We can categories importance of witness as

Cross-examination test misrepresent or true represent the witness in the case,
It is a way of collection of real information about the incident,
When the witness comes contradicts, it creates some doubt about the incident,
Court gives priority for cross –examination of witness and takes strong evidence of the statement of the witness,
Cross-examination helps to give primary and secondary fact in the relevant case,
Cross-examination helps the court to find out the judgments,
Cross-examination helps to advisory party to make argument.

Case law relating to Expert Opinion

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The Supreme Court of Nepal , generally gives preferences to the opinion of expert. It is only sometimes that the court does not consider the Expert Opinion as evidence

In the case of HMG vs. Rajesh K.C. and others,”Semen was found on the clothes of the victim and the person accused of rape. The forensic report was positive during the examination of vaginal swab of the victim; the Supreme Court in this case convicted the accused on the ground of Doctor’s medical report.
Similarly in the case of Sideni Sah Kanu vs.Prabhu Sah Kanu,”the dispute was whether the number ‘0’ had been altered into ‘7’ or not? The expert opined that ‘7’ in the disputed writing and ‘7’in the writing in other places were different .The writing of the disputed number ‘7’was written by different ink, contained plenty of hesitation marks and tremors, and the pen pressure was very thick. The Supreme Court observed that the number ‘7’ was made by altering number ‘o’.
Similarly in the case of Prem Bahdur vs. Ganesh Das,the Supreme Court has observed that the written signature deserves greater importance rather than finger prints impressions if the party executing it seems to be an educated person.
However in the case of Hanif vs.HMG, the Supreme Court rightly held that expert opinion given merely on the ground of inference and not on reliable grounds cannot be relied upon.[NKP,2025(1968),p.94]
Similarly in the case of Milki Ram vs. HMG,the Supreme Court decided that where the doctor is supposed to be , limited to corpse, if doctor gives an opinion on such things that does not conform the condition of dead body , such opinion cannot be relied upon.

Burden of proving fact which is in specific knowledge of the party

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Section 30 of the Evidence Act 2031 states that , any fact which is specific knowledge of the party to the litigation , it should be proved by the same party to the satisfaction of the court , for example , in a charge for travelling train without ticket, the party claiming that he/she had a ticket at the given time , must prove it by himself/herself. It is a fact within special knowledge of him/her. This rule does not cover facts like intention, motive even though they are within special knowledge of the party concerned.