The validity of Anumana (inference) in Nyaya system

by Babu C. D | 2018 | 44,340 words

This thesis is called: The validity of Anumana (inference) in Nyaya system. It tries to establish the validity of Anumana through citing its application either consciously or unconsciously in every sphere of human life. Anumana in Nyaya system is the knowledge of any object not by direct observation but by means of the knowledge of a liṅga or sign ...

Chapter 5.6 - Anumana in Trials and Court Judgments

In court trials and pronouncing judgment the relevance of inference is apparently seen. Most appellate decisions employ a deductive, rule-based methodology. The nature of the disputed issue is carefully specified, the relevant sources of authority are identified, and the answer is ostensibly deduced from those sources through conventional, logical, syllogistic reasoning. In the court trial, a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts or a state of facts already proved or admitted. In the law of evidence, a truth or proposition drawn from another that is supposed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts already proved or admitted. A logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which by process of logic and reason, a Trier of fact may conclude from the established facts. It is the prerogative of the judge to decide upon the facts to draw the inference. When the facts are submitted to the court, the judges draw inference from the facts which have been established by the evidence of the case, make conclusions and thereby pronounce the judgment. Thus, rule of logic is applied in a trial in which a fact is proved by presenting other facts that lead to only one reasonable conclusion that if A and B are true then C is. The process that occurs in court judgment is a process of deduction or deductive reasoning and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence.

Inference thus occupies a central position in law, because the judge or jury arrives at conclusions through inference based on the incidents occurred, evidence available and produced, the testimony of witnesses and other circumstantial evidences.

For example: In the case of SLP (crl) no 1156/2013 criminal appeal No.142 of 2015 before supreme court by Tomaso Bruno and ANR (appellants) versus State of UP (respondent), the supreme court after considering the testimonies of the witnesses, the case diaries, circumstantial evidences concluded that the appellants are guilty of crime and was sentenced to imprisonment.

The case of prosecution is that three Italian nationals names Tomaso Bruno and Elisa Betta Bbon Compagni (accused) and Francis Montis (deceased) came as tourists from London to India in 28-12-2009.[1] After visiting several places they reached Varanasi on 31-12-2010 and stayed in a hotel over there. They went around the place for two days. On the third day the deceased reported a mild head ache and so they returned to the room and stayed the rest of the day at the hotel. In the fourth day the manager was informed that the condition of the deceased is not fine and was rushed to the hospital. He was declared dead by the doctor in the hospital (4-02-2010).

Post mortem report stated the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. Later on, by the order of the district collector a second post mortem was conducted on 6-02-2010 by a panel of doctors and reaffirmed the cause. FIR was lodged based on that. The investigating agency collected bed sheets, pillow, a towel and other material objects. The bed sheet contained marks of urine and stools and a black brown stain of the size of lip on the pillow cover. They also collected other articles from the room. The accused were arrested and was charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.

Upon consideration of evidence trial court convicted the accused person under section 302 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 25000/-. Later, they appealed to high court. But the High court too upheld the verdict. The appellants then appealed to supreme court. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-2012 passed by Allahabad high court in criminal appeal no. 5043 of 2011 in which the high court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/-imposed on each of them.

The Supreme Court hearing both parties and verifying all the documents produced, assessing the circumstantial evidences, testimonies of witnesses and all other proofs produced at the court inferred that the appellants are guilty of the crime and upheld the verdict and the culprits were sent to jail.

Adverse inference is also a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party drawn from silence of absence of requested evidence. It is part of evidence codes based on common law in various countries. The term adverse inference means the court is permitted to draw a negative conclusion from the defendant’s silence when interviewed at the police station; in other words the court may hold the defendant’s silence against him.[2] The usual inference that the jury or magistrates will draw is recent fabrication in that the defendant remained silent when interviewed by the police because he did not have an adequate explanation for his conduct and he has fabricated those facts that from his defense of trial after being charged by the police. Alternatively, the court may draw an inference that even though the defendant did not fabricate his defense after leaving the police station, he did not put his defense forward when interviewed by the police because he did not believe it would stand up to further investigation by the police.

For e.g., In the case of Municipal Corporation Faridabad vs Siri Niwas[3] reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195, the employee had worked from 5.8.1994 to 31.12.1994 as a tube well operator. He alleged that he had worked further from 1.1.1995 to 16.5.1995. His services were terminated on 17.5.1995 wherein an industrial dispute was raised. The case before the tribal was his claim to have worked for 240 days in an year and the purported order of retrenchment was illegal as the conditions precedent to section 25-F of industrial Dispute Act were not complied with. On the other hand, the management contended that the employee had worked for 136 days during the preceding months on daily wages. Upon considering all the material placed on record by the parties to the dispute, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the total number of working days put in by the employee were 184 days and thus he having not completed 240 days of working in a year was not entitled to any relieve. The tribunal noticed that neither the management nor the workman cared to produce the muster roll w.e.f August 1994; that the employee did not summon must or roll although the management had failed to produce them.

Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, the employee filed a writ petition before the High court which took the view that since the management did not produce the relevant documents before the industrial tribunal an adverse inference should be drawn against it as it was in possession of best evidence and thus it was not necessary for the employee to call upon the management to do so.

The High court observed that the burden of proof may not be on the management but in case of non-production of documents an adverse inference could be drawn against the management. The judgment lay down that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. It also lays down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant will not be a ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.

An adverse inference sanction is very serious. Only juries are eligible to give such instruction and that too when it is clear about spoilage or concealment of evidence and the goal was to cover up unfavorable materials. If it can be demonstrated that the event occurred or that the evidence was not relevant to the case, no adverse inference can be made. These measures are designed to protect people by ensuring that they cannot be incriminated by innocent actions.

The standard for criminal cases is much higher because of the recognized higher stakes. Lawyers and judges alike tread very carefully in such cases when it comes to handling evidence because they want to avoid a mis-trial or a situation in which valid and useful evidence is excluded from a trial on a technicality.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

www.Indiankanoon.org/Tomaso Bruno & Anr Vs state of Up retrieved on 18th December 2017.

[2]:

www.wisegeek.com. What is adverse Inference. Retrieved on 18th Dec. 2017.

[3]:

www. Indiankanoon.com Municipal corporation Faridabad vs Siri Niwas, 6, Sept. 2004. Retrieved on 20 Dec. 2017.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: