Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) (77)C.L.R.511, at pp.518-519.

position of a law or fact between parties. It depends upon well-known doctrines which control the relitigation of issues which are settled by prior litigation."

This Court endorsed that statement in Manipur Administra- tion's case('). But the law laid down in those cases has no application to the facts of the present case. In both the prosecution-in the complaint made by Mohar Rai as well as in tie complaint made by P.W. the prosecutor before the court was the State. Therefore, the decision in the former case cannot operate as an issue-estoppel against the appellants in the present case, because they were not parties in the former case. In other words the plea taken by the appellants in this case was never before litigated between them and the State, the opposite party in the present case. All that can be said is that the case put forward by the State in the one case is inconsistent with that put forward by it in the other. In those circumstances it was wrong to hold that the appellants were estopped from putting forward their defence. That apart, it is doubtful-though for the purpose of this case it is unnecessary to express any final opinion on this point-whether the rule in question could be pressed against an accused, the reason being that while a prosecution cannot succeed unless it proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the nature of the proof required of an accused in substantiating the plea taken by him is different-it is sufficient if he proves that plea taken by him is reasonable and probable. In that event he-is entitled to the benefit of doubt. This aspect was noticed by this Court in Manipur Administration's(1) case, where it was observed: