Section 110 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 110 : Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to ownership.—When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 110 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Manindra Mohan Sanyal vs Emperor on 22 April, 1918 - Calcutta High Court
Rajendra Narayan Singh vs Emperor on 12 September, 1912 - Calcutta High Court
The Secretary Of State For India vs Chimanlal Jamnadas on 14 October, 1941 - Bombay High Court
J.S. Parkar vs V.B. Palekar And Ors. on 27 April, 1973 - Bombay High Court
Chiddu vs The State on 26 April, 1951 - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S. Pichaimanickan Chettiar on 3 August, 1982 - Madras High Court
Hausu Dhondba Uike vs Sahebrao Chintaman Salam on 15 January, 2014 - Bombay High Court
Monindra Mohan Sanyal And Ors. vs Emperor on 22 April, 1918 - Calcutta High Court
Emperor vs Kumera And Ors. on 18 December, 1928 - Allahabad High Court
Kanti Lal vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors. on 28 May, 1997 - Rajasthan High Court 

Section 109 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 109 : Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.—When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 109 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
N.A. Subrahmania Aiyar vs Queen Empress on 30 April, 1900 - Madras High Court
Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 - Calcutta High Court
The King Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 - Calcutta High Court
Sangram Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 1977 - Rajasthan High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vashrambhai on 25 January, 2002 - Gujarat High Court
Santosh Boro And Ors. vs State Of Meghalaya on 26 March, 2008 - Gauhati High Court
Bhima Shaw And Ors. vs The State on 10 January, 1956 - Orissa High Court
Binani Properties Private Ltd. vs M. Gulamali Abdul Hossain And Co. on 10 August, 1966 - Calcutta High Court
Arjun Singh vs State Of H.P on 6 February, 2009 - Supreme Court of India
Mohar Singh vs Deen Dayal Gupta on 11 October, 1996 - Delhi High Court 

Section 108 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 108 : Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.—1[Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is 2[shifted to] the person who affirms it.—1[Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is 2[shifted to] the person who affirms it."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 108 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Radha Gajapathi Raju vs Assistant Controller Of Estate on 12 June, 1998 - Madras High Court
Zishan Khan vs District Inspector Of Schools on 2 March, 2012 - Allahabad High Court
M. Venkata Seshamma vs Brahmandam Venkata Kusala Rao on 22 October, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Geddeam Damayanti And Anr. vs Geddam Akkamma And Ors. on 26 September, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Tadepalli Ram Rathnam vs Kantheti Varadarajulu And Ors. on 29 August, 1969 - Andhra High Court
Mustt. Amrana Begum Mazumdar vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 1 February, 2006 - Gauhati High Court
Shankareppa vs Shivarudrappa And Ors. on 27 July, 1962 - Karnataka High Court
Gurdit Singh And Ors. Etc vs Munsha Singh And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector (Head ... on 3 February, 1997 - Supreme Court of India
R. Gopala Pathar vs N. Jayalakshmi Ammal And Ors. on 15 June, 1984 - Madras High Court 

Section 107 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 107 : Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.—When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 107 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Tadepalli Ram Rathnam vs Kantheti Varadarajulu And Ors. on 29 August, 1969 - Andhra High Court
Ramachandra Sadashiv Sidras Oka vs Keshav Dhondu Narvekar And Ors. on 9 November, 1922 - Bombay High Court
Mustt. Amrana Begum Mazumdar vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 1 February, 2006 - Gauhati High Court
Geddeam Damayanti And Anr. vs Geddam Akkamma And Ors. on 26 September, 2007 - Andhra High Court 

Section 106 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 106 : Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 106 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Digambar Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2010 - Allahabad High Court
Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014 - Delhi High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Satish Purushottam Aushal on 24 September, 2014 - Bombay High Court
Vinod Kumar Bhutani vs State Thr. Cbi on 28 May, 2013 - Delhi High Court
Jethalal Nanalal vs State Of Gujarat on 3 May, 1967 - Gujarat High Court
Ravindra Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2014 - Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Singh vs The State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Gandalal And Ors vs State on 20 March, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court
Parmal Singh vs State on 20 March, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court 

Section 105 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 105 : Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustrations
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325. The burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under section 335 lies on A. COMMENTS Plea of self-defence When the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent upon the accused, under section 105 to establish the case of his private defence by showing probability; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad). The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record; Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 105 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court
Aamad @ Kalu Abdulbhai Majothi vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 1998 - Gujarat High Court
Indra Bahadur Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 2010 - Allahabad High Court
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State Of Bombay on 24 September, 1954 - Supreme Court of India
Friday vs By Adv. Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan - Kerala High Court 

Section 104 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 104 : Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.—The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Illustrations
(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B’s death.
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 104 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Pukhraj Pannalal Shah And Ors. vs K.K. Ganguly And Anr. on 9 November, 1967 - Bombay High Court
Illias vs Collector Of Customs, Madras on 31 October, 1968 - Supreme Court of India
Sat Pal vs Sunaina Devi on 8 August, 2006 - Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Posha Rangu Mhatre Since Deceased on 30 September, 2005 - Bombay High Court
Kidavunnil Paduvilan Madhavi vs Kidavunnil Paduvilan Janaki Amma on 17 December, 2009 - Kerala High Court
Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 1968 - Bombay High Court
Sulaiman vs Venkatesan on 23 December, 2014 - Madras High Court
Rajamani Nainar, Krishna Moorthy vs Subramaniam on 15 March, 2006 - Madras High Court
Bhagirathi Burhia And Ors. vs The State on 30 September, 1964 - Orissa High Court
K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Madras High Court

Section 103 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 103 : Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Illustration 1[(a) ] A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

COMMENTS Plea of alibi Plea of alibi taken by accused, it is he who has to prove it; State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021: 1981 SC Cr R 317: 1981 Cr LJ 714: (1981) 2 SCC 300.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 103 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Pormanan vs P.Thiagarajan on 8 December, 2010 - Madras High Court 

S. Madasamy Thevar vs A.M. Arjuna Raja on 27 March, 2000 - Madras High Court 

Gautam vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2010 - Bombay High Court 

Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court 

Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court 

Curch Of South India Trustees vs M.P.Saleena Daniel @ Baby on 15 July, 2010 - Kerala High Court 

Smt.Sukhwati Bai vs Manphool Narwariya on 1 May, 2015 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Food Corporation Of India vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 28 July, 1999 - Gauhati High Court 

Sawal Das vs State Of Bihar on 9 January, 1974 - Supreme Court of India 

Maulvi A.R.M. Abdul Wahed And Ors. vs Nagendra Chandra Lahiri And Ors. on 11 June, 1940 - Calcutta High Court