Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Manichavasaka Pandara(1) Lord Shaw observed as follows:
"A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to, the, Courts the best material for its decision.. With regard to (1) 44 I. A. 98, at P. 103.
third parties, this may be right enough-they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."
Supreme Court of India
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1413, 1968 SCR (3) 862
Bench: Ramaswami, V.
Evidence--Important documentary evidence withheld--Technical
plea of onus of proof cannot prevent adverse inference.
