Evidence with doubt ?????
Guest
(Querist) 14 September 2010
This query is : Resolved
It is said that courts give decisions in favour of the litigants who succeed in proving their evidence beyond any (reasonable) doubt, but many a times the evidence of both the sides---Plaintiff and Defendent--- show some doubt (and such cases are very many), in such cases courts give decision in whose favour ????
Check the wording ,it is not the same and if I feel that my question was not properly understood,what is wrong in re-wording it and posting,it would have been better if you have attempted to answer differently.
Guest
(Querist) 14 September 2010
tom.advocate Ji,---
Check the wording ,it is not the same and if I feel that my question was not properly understood,what is wrong in re-wording it and posting,it would have been better if you have attempted to answer differently.
Prakash Yedhula
(Expert) 14 September 2010
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the requirement for a criminal conviction, but a civil case can be decided based on preponderance of evidence, which means most of the evidence supports the verdict, even if there is still some doubt. So in a civil case, the judge must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way than another.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 15 September 2010
The Judge can go into the facts of the case and can decide the evidences let in by the parties even in corroboration of the evidence and can give his finding
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 14 September 2010
