GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *S.A.(MD) 122/2013* M. Abubaker & 5 Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem Dated: 21.04.2021 *Hon’ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan* partly allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the Order of the 1st Appellate Court with respect to the Appellants 2 to 6 and directed the 1st Appellant to
*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*S.A.(MD) 122/2013*
M. Abubaker & 5 Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem
Dated: 21.04.2021
*Hon’ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan* partly allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the Order of the 1st Appellate Court with respect to the Appellants 2 to 6 and directed the 1st Appellant to pay compensation to the Respondent in the above matter which relates to *“Malicious prosecution and shifting of burden of proof”* and further held the following:
i) A suit for malicious prosecution will only lie against the person who instigated the proceedings; that is, the defacto complainant. Appellants 2 to 6 were merely witnesses in the matter. Therefore, since there is no cause of action from these parties, the Suit will not lie against them.
ii) Civil Court cannot grant a decree on malicious prosecution in favour of the plaintiff merely on the grounds on which he was acquitted.
iii) Burden of proof generally lies only on the plaintiff. However, it would neither be reasonable, nor possible for the plaintiff to prove a negative. The plaintiff herein had asserted the falsehood of the complaint in the witness box and the evidence produced had already demonstrated malice on the part of the Defendant. Further, in Sudhir Chandra Pal Vs. Rajeshwar Datta [AIR 1972 (Gau) 119], it was added that onus may at different stages, shift from one party to the other.
iv) Where the prosecution also included arrest, in a suit for malicious prosecution, the burden of proof rests rather lightly on the plaintiff and when the onus shifts, the defendant has a heavy task to discharge. In reflection, the plaintiff can only depose that the allegation against him was false. A plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution need not demonstrate that he was innocent of the charge upon which he was tried. The same was held in Balbhaddar Sing vs. Badri Sah [AIR 1926 PC 46].
