Section 114 of IEA : Section 114: Court may presume existence of certain facts.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi, a shopkeeper, is found in possession of a stolen mobile phone just two days after it was reported stolen. The police arrest Ravi and charge him with theft. In court, Ravi claims he bought the phone from a customer but cannot provide any details or proof of the transaction. Under Section 114(a) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that Ravi is either the thief or knew the phone was stolen when he received it, unless Ravi can provide a credible explanation for his possession of the stolen phone.

Example 2:

During a corruption investigation, it is found that a government official, Mr. Sharma, has a large sum of unexplained money in his bank account. Mr. Sharma claims that the money is from a loan given to him by a friend, but he fails to produce any documentation or credible evidence to support this claim. Under Section 114(g) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that the evidence which Mr. Sharma could have produced but did not, would have been unfavorable to him, thereby supporting the presumption of corruption.

Example 3:

A company, XYZ Ltd., is sued for breach of contract. The plaintiff claims that XYZ Ltd. did not deliver goods as agreed. XYZ Ltd. argues that they did deliver the goods and that the plaintiff received them. The plaintiff, however, refuses to produce the delivery receipts. Under Section 114(g) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that the delivery receipts, if produced, would have been unfavorable to the plaintiff's case, thereby supporting XYZ Ltd.'s claim that the goods were indeed delivered.

Example 4:

A man named Arjun is accused of being involved in a robbery. During the trial, an accomplice named Vikram testifies against Arjun, claiming that Arjun was the mastermind behind the robbery. However, Vikram's testimony is not corroborated by any other evidence. Under Section 114(b) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that Vikram's testimony is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated by material particulars, thereby requiring additional evidence to support Vikram's claims against Arjun.

Example 5:

A river in a village was known to flow in a certain direction five years ago. Recently, there have been significant floods in the area. A dispute arises regarding the current course of the river. Under Section 114(d) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that the river still flows in the same direction as it did five years ago, unless evidence is provided to show that the floods have altered its course.

Example 6:

During a trial, it is questioned whether a government order was properly issued. The order was issued during a period of emergency. Under Section 114(e) of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed, unless there is evidence to suggest that the emergency circumstances led to irregularities in the issuance of the order.