Bombay High Court Rules Missing Man Presumed Dead in Landmark Decision
In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has officially declared that a man who has been missing since 2003 is now presumed to be dead. This ruling came as the court quashed and set aside an earlier order from a lower court that had demanded additional evidence from the missing man's son regarding his father's memory loss.
Court Criticizes Lower Court's Demands for Medical Evidence
Justice Jitendra Jain, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment on Thursday, stating emphatically that the absence of medical records proving memory loss should not invalidate the son's claim. "Merely because the plaintiff could not produce any medical records of his father after a period of more than 7 years to show memory loss of the father, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claim made by the plaintiff. The circumstantial evidence leans in favour of the plaintiff," Justice Jain remarked.
The case originated from the son's appeal against a trial court order dated October 31, 2015, which had dismissed his suit to have his father declared dead. The father, a resident of Borivli, Mumbai, went for a medical checkup on April 8, 2003, and never returned, prompting the son to file a missing complaint with the police.
Key Evidence and Legal Precedents Cited
Justice Jain highlighted several crucial pieces of evidence presented by the son, which the trial court had overlooked:
- A police complaint and certificate confirming the father's disappearance since April 8, 2003.
- Official documents including a ration card, birth certificate, and passport copy, all issued by government authorities.
- Newspaper advertisements in Marathi and Kannada publications offering rewards for information about the missing father.
"None of these documents were found to be incorrect or rebutted by the state-defendant," the judge noted, emphasizing that these records were prepared and issued by state officers, lending them significant credibility. "Certainly these documents cannot be brushed aside," he added.
Application of Indian Evidence Act Section 108
A pivotal aspect of the ruling was the court's reliance on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. This legal provision states that if a person has not been heard from for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of them if they were alive, the person is presumed dead. Justice Jain affirmed that the son's advocates, K B Adyanthaya and R K Shetty, were justified in invoking this section.
"There is nothing on record which shows otherwise and, therefore, in my view, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit," Justice Jain declared, allowing the son's appeal. He directed that a decree be drawn to officially declare and pronounce that the missing man is presumed dead on the expiry of seven years from April 8, 2003, or thereabout.
Broader Implications for Missing Persons Cases
This ruling underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings involving missing persons, particularly when official documents and prolonged absence support the claims. It also serves as a reminder of the judicial system's role in providing closure to families affected by such disappearances, without imposing unreasonable burdens of proof.
The decision marks a victory for the son, who has sought legal recognition of his father's status for years, and sets a precedent for similar cases in India where individuals vanish without a trace, leaving families in limbo.
