Back
Allahbad High Court
H.N.SETH
Vijai Nath - Appellant
Versus
Damodar Das Chela Shiv Mangal Das - Respondent
Decided On : 09/09/1970
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - SHIFTING OF BURDEN - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - DAMAGES - QUANTUM - ASSESSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant for malicious prosecution. The defendant had filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff's bullocks had grazed the defendant's sugar-cane crop and that the plaintiff had assaulted him when he tried to take the bullocks to the kine-house. The plaintiff denied the incident and claimed that the complaint was false and malicious. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant's complaint appeared to be true and that there was no evidence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit, holding that the defendant's complaint was false to his knowledge and that there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause and presence of malice.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in its approach to the burden of proof. The burden of proving that the complaint was false and malicious and that there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause lay on the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not discharge this burden merely by denying the incident. The plaintiff had to produce reliable evidence to show that the incident did not take place. The lower appellate court failed to scrutinize the evidence produced by the plaintiff and to determine whether it was reliable. The High Court also held that the lower appellate court erred in its assessment of damages. The lower appellate court had awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of Rs. 226.25, which was the amount that the trial court had found to be reasonable if the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his claim. However, the High Court held that the lower appellate court should have considered the nature of the complaint and the allegations made therein and should have awarded damages that were commensurate with the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving that the defendant's complaint was false and malicious and that there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause. 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in its assessment of damages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving that the complaint was false and malicious and that there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause lay on the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not discharge this burden merely by denying the incident. The plaintiff had to produce reliable evidence to show that the incident did not take place. 2. The lower appellate court erred in its assessment of damages. The lower appellate court should have considered the nature of the complaint and the allegations made therein and should have awarded damages that were commensurate with the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and remanded the case for a rehearing.
2. It is said that the defendant Vijay Nath filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging that on 26th March, 1960 at about 8 a. m. two bullocks belonging to Damodar Das were grazing the sugar-cane crop grown in Vijai Nath's field. When Vijay Nath after apprehending these bullocks was taking them to kine-house, Damodar Das stopped Vijay Nath and asked him not to take the bullocks to the kine-house. Vijay Nath did not agree to this. Damodar Das raised an alarm on which certain persons, who along with Damodar Das are plaintiffs in the suit reached there. They snatched the bullocks and beat Vijay Nath who received a number of injuries. Vijay Nath however did not go to the police station on account of fear. He filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dumariaganj. The Judicial Magistrate summoned the plaintiffs and ultimately the complaint filed by Vijay Nath was dismissed for default. According to the plaintiffs this complaint was absolutely false, malicious and without any reasonable and probable cause. No incident as alleged by Vijay Nath, ever, took place and he was never beaten. Plaintiffs therefore claimed damages for their prosecution which was malicious and had been initiated without any reasonable and probable cause.
3. The defendant pleaded that the complaint filed by him was true and in no case it could be described as false or malicious. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the relief claimed by him.
4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant did sow sugar-cane crop and the situation of his field was such that cattle belonging to the plaintiff could enter it and graze the sugar-cane crop. It found that the plaintiff's evidence which consisted of the statement made by Domodar Das and his labourer Bansraj was the evidence given by interested witnesses and as such it could not be relied upon. According to it the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant consisted of his own statement which was fully corroborated by the evidence given by Ram Nath against whom nothing could be said. It therefore believed the evidence tendered by the defendant and held that allegations made by Vijay Nath in his complaint appeared to be correct. The trial court was not inclined to draw any inference against the defendant from the fact that he got his complaint dismissed for default as in its opinion the prosecution of the plaintiff appeared to be based on facts. It could therefore, not be said that the complaint lodged by the defendant was malicious and without any reasonable and probable cause.
5. During the course of its discussion the trial court observed that in a suit for malicious prosecution the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and that it was actuated by malice. According to it the prosecution may lack reasonable and probable cause in two ways : "Firstly the occurrence may not have taken place and secondly the plaintiff may not have participated in the same. Thus the negative burden lay on the plaintiff. This burden is very well discharged by the denial made by the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff having discharged the initial burden it became the duty of the defendant to prove that an occurrence took place and the plaintiff took part in the same. In the circumstances, the trial court was satisfied that the statements made by defendant and his witness fully proved what was required of him.
6. Learned Munsif then went into the question of damages and came to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
