Adverse Inference Can Be Drawn Against Party Who Does Not Appear In Person To Depose
Adverse Inference Can Be Drawn Against Party Who Does Not Appear in Person to Depose: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction
In judicial proceedings, the attendance and examination of parties, especially the principal parties or witnesses, is crucial for proper adjudication. When a party, without sufficient cause, fails to appear in person to give evidence or testify, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against that party.
This principle stems from the idea that a party who is confident of their claim or defense would naturally present their side of the story. Non-appearance may indicate consciousness of weakness, suppression of truth, or lack of bona fide.
2. Legal Principles
Courts have inherent power to draw adverse inferences under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Failure to appear and depose as a witness by a party can be considered a circumstance against the party’s case.
Adverse inference is not automatic but depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
It is a tool to prevent abuse of process and ensure fair trial.
3. Supreme Court Case Law
3.1. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 250
The Supreme Court held that if a party does not appear to give evidence without adequate reason, an adverse inference can be drawn.
The Court emphasized that non-appearance is a relevant fact and may indicate weakness of the case.
3.2. Sunil Dutt v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 425
The Court observed that the absence of a party without valid cause may be treated as an admission of the facts alleged by the other side.
Drawing adverse inference helps in fair disposal of cases where parties avoid attendance to delay or frustrate justice.
3.3. Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480
Held that non-appearance of a party who is a witness can lead to adverse inference about the strength or truthfulness of that party’s case.
However, the Court cautioned that courts must consider the reasons for non-appearance before drawing adverse inference.
3.4. Union of India v. V.K. Verma (1989) 4 SCC 509
The Court stated that adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party that fails to call a material witness or person who can prove or disprove facts.
4. Application in Practice
In civil matters, if a plaintiff or defendant does not appear to give evidence, courts can rely on adverse inference to accept the opponent’s version.
In criminal trials, if an accused or prosecution witness avoids deposition, courts may consider it in assessing the credibility of evidence.
Courts still need to ensure non-appearance is not due to genuine reasons like illness, unavoidable circumstances.
5. Conclusion
The principle of drawing adverse inference against parties who fail to appear in person to depose is a well-recognized judicial tool to ensure justice, prevent abuse of process, and encourage fair trial. The courts maintain a balance between discretion and fairness by considering reasons for non-appearance before drawing such inference.
RELATED Blog
0 comments