Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Kali Ram was tried in the Court of Sessions for an offence under s.302. The learned sessions convicted the accused under s.302 IPC. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by the Court. Whether or not a presumption can be drawn under section 114 in a particular case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Leaving aside the case of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed.
Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
S.N. Bose v. State of Bihar
The appellant demanded and received illegal gratification for treating a patient (PW.4) Both the Trial court and High Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant both under s.161 IPC as well as s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court is bound to draw the presumption mentioned therein. The presumption in question will hold good unless the accused proves the contrary. In other words, the burden of proving the contrary is squarely placed on the accused.
K. L. Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property
Plaintiff, who says that he had sold certain goods to the Defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods and that he is in possession of the relevant account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale was effected for a particular consideration, should produce the said account books, for he is in possession of the same and the Defendant certainly cannot be expected to produce his documents. The Court held that it could not be denied that prima facie a negotiable instrument, which had been endorsed, shall be taken to have been drawn for consideration. But if there is evidence to prove that there was no consideration for the endorsement then there can be no presumption to that effect. The evidence shows that the circumstances of the can negative the fact that the promissory note endorsed for consideration.
Hans Raj v. State of Haryana
The wife of the appellant, Jeeto Rani committed suicide on 24.8.1986 on account of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the appellant. Having gone through evidence presented the court is satisfied that prosecution has sought to improve its case at trial by introducing new facts and allegations which were never stated in the course of investigation. The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant can be convicted of the offence under s. 306 IPC with the aid of the presumption under s. 113A of Evidence Act. The trail court convicted him under s. 113A of Evidence act that he had abetted the suicide (s.306 IPC). The Supreme Court is not in agreement with the trial court holding and states having regard to the facts of this case and our finding that the prosecution is guilty of improving its case from stage to stage. We therefore set aside the conviction and acquit him of the charge of s.306 IPC, but we find the appellant guilty of the offence under s.498A IPC.