BIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 362

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

BIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

(2009] 6 S. C. R. 362 .... ) ... when it was lying at a bus stand and near a police station. In such an even~, the court can presume that the police officers themselves should have taken possession of the dead body. [Para 13] [369-E, F, G] 2. 2. The Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She, therefore, might not be aware of the details as to how the accident took place but the fact that the First Information Report had been lodged in relation to an accident could not have been ignored. Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not.

For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ' [Para 14) [369-H; 370-A, B, C] 2. 3. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner , " > ~ For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was . required to apply the principle underlying burden 9f proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 15.

In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose. 17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned • ' judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B. B. B. Appeal allowed.