BASALINGAPPA v. MUDIBASAPPA

#3. This Court is of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs.6 lakhs given to the accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs.18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence. The observation of the High Court that trial court’s finding that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity of lending money is perverse cannot be supported. This Court failed to see that how the trial court’s findings can be termed as perverse by the High Court when it was based on consideration of the evidence, which was led on behalf of the defence. [Para 28][575-G-H; 576-A-B]

#4. High Court without discarding the evidence, which was led by defence could not have held that finding of trial court regarding financial capacity of the complainant is perverse. Thus, this court is satisfied that accused has raised a probable defence and the findings of the trial court that complainant failed to prove his financial capacity are based on evidence led by the defence. The observations of the High Court that findings of the trial court are perverse are unsustainable. Thus, the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. [Para 29][576-E-F] A B C D E F G H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. A B C D E F Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808:[1974] 1 SCR 722; Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal (1999) 3 SCC 35:[1999] 1 SCR 704; M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani v. State of Kerala and Another (2006) 6 SCC 39:[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 124; Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54:[2008] 1 SCR 605; Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513:[2008] 17 SCR 572; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441:[2010] 6 SCR 507 – relied on.