What is Res Ipsa Loquitur

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.” Imposing a legal interpretation, this doctrine comes forth validating the admissibility of circumstantial evidence and/or secondary evidence when there’s a lack of evidence against the defendant.

In Byrne vs Boadle, this maxim was used for the first time where the complainant was injured by a barrel that dropped from the window of the defendant.

In the abovementioned case, Pollock, C. B., said “here are many incidents from which no presumption of negligence can arise, but this is not true in every case. It is the duty of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to take care that they do not roll out and I think that such a case will, beyond all doubt, afford prima facie proof of negligence.”

This doctrine intends to help direct the court proceedings to a conclusion, especially if it is established through the implication of this doctrine’s rule that the injury caused to the claimant would not have occurred or taken place if the defendant wasn’t negligible.

This also gives enough cause and evidence to hold the defendant liable for his negligent actions.

• What is Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur Maxim
• Applicability of Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act

Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur Maxim

1. The injury caused to the plaintiff shall be a result of an act of negligence.
2. There is a lack of evidence, or the evidence presented before the court is insufficient to establish the possibilities of the fault of the plaintiff or third party.
3. The defendant owes a duty of care towards the plaintiff, which he has breached.
4. There is a significant degree of injury caused to the plaintiff.

Applicability of Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The maxim of res ipsa loquitur came into force to benefit the plaintiff as he can use circumstantial evidence to establish negligence.

Consequently, it shifts the burden of proof on the defendant, logic being, where there is an event of unexplained cause, usually, the one that does not occur without the defendant’s negligence in controlling the action which has caused the injury to the claimant or destroyed his goods.

In this scenario, the court shall presume negligence on the part of the defendant in such a case unless it includes an appropriate explanation compatible with his taking reasonable care.

In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others, it was considered that the maxim should not be applied in the case of general incidences of neglect and shall only be reflected when there is a significant degree of injury caused.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 106 of the Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Illustrations:

1. When a person does an act with some intention other than which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
2. A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him, and if B wishes the court to believe that A was elsewhere, then he must prove it.

It is pertinent (relevant or applicable to a particular matter) to note that this section applies only to parties to the suit. It implies that the responsibility of proving negligence rests on the person who alleges it.

In Ishwari vs Karnataka 1994 SC, the Hon’ble court held that “where a man and women were found hiding under the bed in a bedroom of the person who was found dead from injuries, the proof lies upon them to explain their presence and also the circumstances in which the deceased met his death.”

It is important to note that this doctrine does not apply to instances where it is susceptible for anyone else other than the defendant to be in knowledge of any such cause of action as being claimed. It is, in fact, an opportunity for defence when the facts especially lie solely in the knowledge or insight of the defendant.

For example: Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims to be or not to be a foreigner.

What is the Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Indian Evidence Act
Dinky Punjabi

• Lifting of Corporate Veil – Introduction
• When corporate veil shall be lifted?
• When courts can neglect the distinct personality of a company?

Lifting of Corporate Veil – Introduction

A company is distinct from its members. It is a separate legal entity. There is, consequently, a veil between a corporation and its members, keeping them both detached from each other for better legal clarity in terms of overriding rights, duties and obligations. Nevertheless, occasionally it becomes obligatory to lift this veil, neglect the corporation’s distinct corporate entity, and discover the authenticity of the company.

The court may examine the factual affairs, ownership, etc., of the company. This is recognised as lifting or piercing the corporate veil.

In a supplementary interpretation, the court inspects the factual state of dealings of the company. It has been observed that though a corporation is a diverse entity, yet in certainty, it is an association, or simply put, a group of people who are, in fact, unified as the beneficial owners of the existing corporate property.

The corporate veil is lifted by the court when it overlooks the company’s identity and concerns itself directly with the members or managers. It is principally at the discretion of the court and will depend upon the fundamental, social, economic and moral factors as they function in and through the corporation.

The corporate veil is lifted when in defence proceedings. For example, in the case of tax evasion, an entity relies on its corporate personality as a shield to cover its wrongdoings. BSN (UK) Ltd. and Others vs Janardan Mohandas Rajan Pillai (1996).

Nevertheless, the shareholders are not to question the lifting of the veil for personal motives or intentions. This was held in Premlata Bhatia vs Union of India (2004), where a shop’s premises were prearranged on a licence to the individual licensee. She set up a solely owned private company and transferred the premises to that company without the Government’s consent. She could not eliminate the illegality by claiming that she and her company were virtually the same people.

When corporate veil shall be lifted?

The corporate veil shall be lifted in the following occurrences:

1. To investigate the relationships between the holding company and the subsidiary company;
2. To investigate the figure and titles of members of the company;
3. To investigate the true proprietorship of shares and regulatory power over the company;
4. To investigate legal substances of the company;
5. To investigate maladministration and subjugation by the majority;
6. To investigate the atmosphere of the corporation where it is trading with an alien enemy or persons dealing with the affairs of the company are under the control of enemies or be residing in the enemy country;
7. To investigate the activities where there exists a tendency to create a monopoly;
8. To investigate the corporation activities where there is a possibility for tax evasion or an intention to evade tax obligation;
9. To investigate if the company is acting as an agent for its shareholders; To investigate the affairs where it is formed for fraudulent purposes, to overthrow and circumvent the regulation or to defraud its creditors or to evade binding responsibilities.

The Companies Act, 2013 comprises a few provisions {Sections 7(7), 251(1), and 339)} that lift the corporate veil to grasp the real forces of action.

Section 7(7) discusses the punishment for the incorporation of a company by furnishing false information. At the same time, Section 251(1) provides for the liability for making a fraudulent application for removal of the name of the company from the register of companies. Moreover, section 339 puts forth the liability for fraudulent conduct of business during winding up.

From the time the decision in Salomon vs Salomon & Co. Ltd., (1897), was passed, the courts have become reluctant or, at the slightest, very vigilant to lift the veil of the company’s authentic personality and to see the real individuals behind it.

When courts can neglect the distinct personality of a company?

Nonetheless, courts have established it necessary to neglect the distinct personality of a company in the following state of affairs:

1. Wherever the corporate veil has been cast off for a directive of fraud or inappropriate demeanour. In such a circumstance, courts have lifted the veil and beheld the realism of the situation.
2. Wherein, a corporate disguise is actually only agency instrumentation.
3. Where the comportment conflicts with the public policy, courts lifted the corporate veil to shield public policy.

In Inalsa Ltd. vs Union of India (1996), it was held that it was permitted and acceptable for the court to lift the veil of any corporation to see whether it was a subsidiary of another company.

Lifting of Corporate Veil
Dinky Punjabi

What Is the Meaning of Evidence

Evidence comprises anything that may be used to determine the truth of the assertion. The production and presentation of evidence depend on establishing on whom the burden of proof lays. The judge or the jury decides if the burden of proof has been fulfilled. After it has been established who shall carry the burden of proof, the evidence is foremost gathered, collected and then presented before the court to determine its admissibility.

According to Sir Blackstone:

‘evidence’ signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the facts or points in the issue either on one side or another.

According to Sir Taylor:

Law of Evidence which branches out of the Law of the procedure, “means through argument to prove or disprove any matter of fact. The truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.”

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines evidence as:

• All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence.
• All the documents, including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence.

As per the above-mentioned definition of evidence under this act, the evidence presented before the court is extracted from two sources, namely, a statement of witnesses and through documents and electronic records.

In Sivrajbhan vs Harchandgir, the Supreme Court of India held:

“The word evidence in connection with the law, all valid meanings, includes all except agreement which proves/disprove a factor matter whose truthfulness is presented for judicial investigation. At this stage, it will be proper to keep in mind that where a party and the other party don’t get the opportunity to cross-examine his statements to ascertain the truth, then in such a condition, this party’s statement is not evidence.”

Ten Types of Evidence

The ten types of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act are:

1. Oral Evidence

The provision of section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the recording of oral evidence.

All those acceptable statements which the court assumes from the witnesses to help accomplish the direction of the truth of the facts laid before the court are called Oral Evidence. Oral evidence is that evidence which the witness has himself has seen or heard. It must always be direct. Evidence is direct when it primarily establishes the main fact in an issue.

Example: A tells B that he will kill C. A’s statement is oral evidence.

2. Documentary Evidence

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all documents presented before the court for inspection are claimed to be documentary evidence.

Documentary evidence helps determine the attitude, intention, and consciousness regarding the custom is viewed to be more important than oral evidence.

Example: marriage certificate, medical records, birth certificate, written contract, affidavits.

3. Primary Evidence

Section 62 of the Act reflects primary evidence as to the top-most class of evidence. It is that proof which in any possible condition gives a vital hint and appropriate direction for suitable action in a disputed fact and establishes for inspection by the court through documentary evidence on the production of an original document. It means that the document was itself available for the inspection of the court.

In Lucas vs Williams, the Privy Council held:

primary evidence is evidence which the law requires to be given first and secondary evidence is the evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given.

Example: CCTV footage, audio recordings, video recordings, etc.

4. Secondary Evidence

Section 63 states it is evidence that occupies a secondary position, produced in the absence of the primary evidence; therefore, it is known as secondary evidence. If in place of primary evidence, secondary evidence is admitted without any objection at the proper time, then the parties are precluded from raising any question against the document not being proved by primary evidence but by secondary evidence. However, where there is no secondary evidence as contemplated by section 66 of the Evidence Act, the document cannot be said to have been proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence.

Example: Photocopy of a document.

5. Real Evidence

Any material evidence is real evidence. Real evidence of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court by inspection of a physical object and not just by information derived from a witness or a document.

Example: contempt of court, the conduct of the witness, the parties’ behaviour to a case, the local inspection by the court. It can also be called the most satisfactory witness.

6. Hearsay Evidence

The acceptance and weightage of this evidence are very weak. It is only the reported evidence of a witness which he has neither seen nor heard. Sometimes it implies the witness overhearing a statement of some other person.

In Lim Yam Yong vs Lam Choon & Co., the Bombay High Court adjudged:

Hearsay Evidence which ought to have been rejected as irrelevant does not become admissible as against a party merely because his council fails to take objection when the evidence is tendered.

Hence, we can conclude that hearsay evidence is evidence that the witness has neither itself seen nor heard, nor has he perceived through his senses, and such a fact has been drawn to his knowledge through a secondary source – a third party.

There is no bar to receiving hearsay evidence provided since it has reasonable nexus and credibility. When a piece of evidence is such that there is no prima facie assurance of its credibility, it could prove dangerous and unfair to act upon it. Hearsay evidence is, therefore, conclusive to be out of the governance of the Evidence act.

It’s very rare for hearsay evidence to be an acceptable piece of evidence in any case. It doesn’t hold weightage compared to the others. In rare circumstances, when primary and secondary evidence are absent, it may be considered.

Example: A is the eye witness to a murder case. He saw B killing C. However, later during the proceedings, A develops a mental disorder. Due to mental disability or insanity, the court will not be able to admit A’s testimony. However, D overhears a conversation between E and F about B planning to kill C. In such an exceptional case, the court may rather consider D’s statement as hearsay evidence to structure its further proceedings.

Related: What Is Doctrine of Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence?

7. Judicial Evidence

Evidence received by the court of Justice in proof or disproof of facts before the court is called judicial evidence.

Example: The confession made by the accused in the court, statements of witnesses, and documentary evidence and facts for the examination by the court are judicial evidence.

8. Non-Judicial Evidence

Any confession made by the accused outside the court in the presence of any person or the admission of a party is called non-judicial evidence.

9. Direct Evidence

Evidence is either direct or indirect. Direct evidence is evidence that is very important for the decision of the matter and fact in the issue presented.

When the facts of the case are presented before the court by witnesses, it is direct evidence.

The person who had actually seen the crime being committed can help describe the offence, and, through its statement, help serve as a direction for the facts to be established in the case presented.

The evidence of the witness in court is direct evidence as opposed to a testimony to a fact suggesting guilt. Moreover, in case a statement was given before the police, it can be called circumstantial evidence of complicity and not direct evidence in the strict sense, i.e., indirect evidence.

Example: The testimony of an eyewitness.

10. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence

There is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. They are synonymous. Circumstantial evidence paves the way to prove the facts in the issue by providing other facts and manages to pull out an instance as to its existence. It connects to a series of other facts than the fact in the issue. However, it is often associated with the fact in issue relative to the cause and effect, leading to a satisfactory and meaningful conclusion.

In the case of Hanumant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed:

“In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is circumstantial, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. And all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt. In other words, there can be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.

Example: footprints on the crime scene floor may become a possibility for the person to be a suspect in the case.

10 Types of Evidence Under the Indian Evidence Act
Dinky Punjabi