What situation respondent is required to produce evidence?

1976 KLT 855

S.K. Kader, J.

MOIDINKUNHI v. ABDULLA

Crl.R.P. No.277 of 1975

Decided on 24th August, 1976

Criminal P.C. 1898, S.517 - Disposal of property - Scope and nature of enquiry - Burden of proof Meaning of

The phrase 'burden of proof has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act. This phrase has two distinct meanings. In the first sense it means the burden of establishing a case and in the second sense, the burden of introducing evidence. The essential distinction between these two is that the former never shifts and remains throughout the entire case, while the latter shifts from time to time as the case proceeds. There is material and essential difference between the standard of proof in civil and criminal cases. In a criminal case, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is heavily cast on the prosecution; whereas the standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of probabilities. In other words, in a civil case there is no burden cast on any party similar to the one in a criminal proceeding. The law does not recognise the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to a party on whom the burden of proof lies. Where both parties have adduced evidence on the point in issue, the burden of proof is of no moment. In the case on hand, where both parties have put forward rival claims, each one affirmatively asserting his claim, and have led all evidence and placed the relevant facts before the court and all that remained was a decision as to what inference was to be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances in the case, the abstract considerations of onus of proof are quite out of place and not pertinent. What we are concerned in a proceeding of this nature is whether there are sufficient materials on record to hold as to who actually is entitled to possession of the property involved in the case. It may be noted in this respect that S.452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to S.517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, speaks of disposal of property to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. It is clear that it is not mere custody or possession that matters but there must be material to show that the custody or possession was lawful In the instant case, the order of acquittal cannot in any way help the respondent to establish his claim that he is the person entitled to the return of the property.