FACTS

Fact is term having a variety of meanings. It may be:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

An act, action or deed, a thing done

An effect produced or achieved (Webster Dictionary;
An occurrence or event ( Boyle v State 105 Ind. 469, 484)
A state of things, that is, an existence or a motion, that is, an event (Bentham)
A truth distinguished from fiction or error, a circumstance;
An incident, an event or incident

Steve Uglow states that the term, fact is being used in three different senses:i.
ii.

The information provided by witnesses and other evidence;

The conclusions drawn by trier of fact from the information presented in Court as to

iii.

what actually happened; and

The legal concepts, facts in issue that must be established if a particular party to legal
proceedings is to succeed.

In popular concept, the term, fact means an existing thing. It does not refer to mental condition
of which a person is conscious but as defined in Evidence Act, the meaning of word, fact is not
limited to only what is tangible and is visible or, in any way, the object of senses.
Section 3 of Evidence Act states:
Fact means and includes:
i.
ii.

Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by senses;

Any mental condition on which any person is conscious.

Illustrations:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place is a fact;
That a man heard or saw something is a fact;
That a man said certain words is a fact;
That a man has a certain reputation is a fact;
That a man holds a certain opinion has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense or is or was at a specified time
conscious of particular sensation, is a fact.

According to this definition, as is also clear from examples, the statements, feelings, opinions
and state of mind are as much facts as any other fact which is tangible and visible or any other
circumstance of which, through medium of senses we become aware,
Facts in Issue
The facts which may be ordinarily be proved in judicial proceedings are facts in issue, facts
relevant to issue and collateral facts, i.e. those which affect the admissibility of evidence.
Facts in issue are facts which a plaintiff or prosecutor must prove in order to win, or which a
defendant must prove in order to succeed in some defence which is open to him.
Phipson says that, Facts in issue, which are sometimes called principal facts are those
necessary by law to establish the claim, liability or defence, forming the subject matter of
proceedings; and which are in dispute between parties. In civil cases, the court may give
directions about issues on which it requires evidence.
According to Peter Murphy, the facts in issue in a case, sometimes called ultimate facts are the
facts which a party to litigation must prove in order to succeed in his claim or defence and to
show his entitlement to relief or to obtain conviction.
Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act states that the expression facts in issue means and includesany fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, nonexistence of extent of any right, liability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily
followed.
For example
A is accused of murder of B.
At his trial, the following facts may be facts in issue that A caused B s death
That A intended to cause Bs death;
That A had received sudden and grave provocation from B;

That A at the time of doing the act which caused Bs death was by reason of unsoundness of
mind, incapable of knowing its nature.
Facts in issue are facts which form subject matter of courts decision. Facts in issue in plain sense
means facts which are in issue and form the subject matter of courts decision. Facts in issue in
criminal proceedings are alleged by prosecution and denied by the defence, by plea of not guilty.
Facts in issue are also asserted by plaintiff in civil proceedings and denied by defendant.
The definition of facts in issue also is an inclusive one. An issue will arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. They can be issues of
facts and issues of law.
In criminal cases, the charges constitute and includes facts I issue in Chapter XIII, CrPC, 1973.
In criminal proceedings, it is absolutely necessary to confine evidence to issue namely, whether
the accused is guilty or not of charges leveled against him.
Facts relevant to issue
The word relevant has been derived from Latin term relevare which means raising and legally
pertinent.
The word relevant has two meaning:
In one sense, it means concerned
In other sense, it means admissible
According to Stephen, relevancy means connection of events as cause and effect. What is really
meant by relevant fact is a fact that has certain degree of probative force. The Evidence Act
does not give any definition of word relevant.
Section 3 of the Act states that one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of ways referred to in provisions of this Act relating to relevancy
of facts.
For example, a fact in issue is whether A stabbed B. however, there was no eye-witnesses to the
alleged stabbing. Then if A was seen outside Bs bedroom with blood stained knife in his hand or

A had bought knife day before or that A has expressed hostility to B- all these facts have a
bearing on or relevance to facts in issue, whether A stabbed B. Evidence of relevant facts is
called circumstantial. When there is no direct evidence of the fact is issue, the relevant facts help
to find the truth.
What is relevant is obviously a question of degree. There are degrees of relevant fact, from most
direct and obvious which no reasonable person can avoid seeing, shading away to facts the
relevance of which is hardly discernible. It is always better to exclude the remotely and marginal
to relevant facts in accepting the evidence in Court.
The following are relevant facts:
i.
ii.

Facts which are occasion, cause or facts in issue are relevant facts (Section 7);
Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct of the accused and parties

iii.

are relevant facts; (Section 8)

The facts, which are necessary to explain or introduce the facts in issue of relevant

iv.

facts, are relevant facts; (Section 9)\

Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design are relevant facts.
(Section 10)

Distinction between Relevant facts and Facts in Issue

Facts in issue are determined by the court basing upon the facts of the case during stage of
framing of issues but the court considers the relevant facts in supporting or denying those facts
in issue during the trial of the case, I.e. to prove facts in issue.
A fact in issue is a necessary ingredient of a right or liability whereas relevant fact or merely
renders probable the existence or non-existence of any ingredient of a right or liability.
A fact in issue is principal factor i.e factum probandium but a relevant factor is evidentiary fact
i.e. factum probandi.
Facts in issue are matters which are in disputes which are affirmed by one party and denied by
other party while the relevant facts are foundations of inference regarding them.
The facts in issue are basis for the law of evidence while relevant facts are part of law of
evidence.
Collateral Facts

Collateral facts in law of evidence are those not bearing directly on issue before the court; facts
which are not directly involved or connected with the principal issue or matter in dispute.
Collateral facts are facts which affect admissibility of evidence. Some kinds of evidence are not
allowed unless some precondition is shown to exist.
For example, the dying declarations are not admissible unless the declarator knew he was dying.
His knowledge of impending death has no logical connection with facts in issue. It is judge who
decides whether collateral facts are established as part of his general duty to rule on admissibility
of evidence.

Evidence
The word evidence is derived from the Latin Evidentia which means the state of being
evident, that is plain , apparent clear. It is also related to Latin expression evidens evidere
which means to show clearly, to make plain, certain or to prove.
Wigmore states that the term evidence means any knowable facts or group of facts, not a legal or
logical principle, considered with a view to it being offered before a legal tribunal for purpose of
producing a persuasion, positive or negative, on part of tribunal as to truth of proposition, not of
law or logic on which determination of tribunal is to be asked
Taylor states that it includes all legal means exclusive of mere arguments, which tend to prove or
disprove any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.
According to Bentham, evidence is defined as any matter of facts, the effect, tendency or design
of which is to produce in mind, a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative, of existence of some
other matter of fact.

Tomlins Law dictionary states that evidence is means from which any inference may logically
be drawn as to existence of a fact.
To sum up the statements made by witness in court under the legal rules relating to matter of fact
under enquiry and/or the documents produced for inspection of judge or the court may be termed
as evidence.
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines Evidence as given below:
Evidence- Evidence means and include:
i. All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation
to matters of facts under inquiry each statements are called oral evidence;
ii. All documents including electronic records produced for inspection of the Court.
Such documents are called documentary evidence.
The definition for evidence covers the evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence. Both of
them must be produced before the court for its inquiry and inspection. All the statements must be
permitted by the court or required to be produced before it by witnesses.
Items which are not evidences:
1. According to Section 1 of Indian Evidence Act, and definition of Evidence under Section 3, an
affidavit is not an evidence.
2. Under the Indian Evidence Act, matters other than statement of witnesses and documents
produced for inspection of the Court, e.g.
A) a confession or a statement of an accused in a trial; statements made by parties when
examined otherwise than as witnesses, demeanour of any witness under examination;
B) The result of local investigation or local inspection; and
C) Material objects other than documents such as weapons, tools, stolen properties etc are not
evidence according to Definition of the Act.
3. A statement of witness recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C is not evidence though it may
be considered for other purposes. {Bhuboni Sahu v. King AIR 1949 PC 257}
4. Result of investigation is not legal evidence { Kaptan Singh v. State of MP AIR 1997 SC
2485}
5. The statement in reply to show cause notice is not evidence. { Collector of Central
Exercise, Baroda v. L.M.P. Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 3309}
6. When the court has not directed the proof of a fact by an affidavit, it is no evidence
{Vishwanath v. Abdul AIR 1963 SC 1}. Affidavit is no evidence under the Indian

Evidence Act but it can be used under Order XIX, CPC and Sections 295 and 296 of
CrPC.
7. Judges cannot impart his personal knowledge to take place of evidence nor can he rely on
books (not being text books) if the books were not admitted in evidence or were
inadmissible. {Vallabh v. Madusudhanam ILR 12 Mad. 495}.
8. In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415), it was held that learned judge was
not entitled to allow his views or observation to take the place of evidence because such
view or observation could not be tested by cross examination.
9. When the accused makes a statement or answer to questions from the court, it does not fall
within definition of word evidence as defined in Evidence ct (AIR 1958 Cal. 616).
10. Newspaper items by itself does not constitute evidence {Niranjan Lal Ratan Kumar v.
River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. {AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 74}
11. Pleadings do not constitute evidence { State of Punjab v. Ramjilal, AIR 1971 SC 1228}
12. Report of Medical Officer without statement on oath by the Medical officer is not
evidence {Reshmi v Jai Singh 1975 Hindu LR 22}.
13. Conclusion of witnesses including police are not evidence {1975 MAd L.J (Cri) 399}.
14. Evidence collected by police during investigation is not evidence. {Ranjit Singh v. State
AIR 1952 HP 81}
15. The statement made in a letter addressed to Court is not evidence {Ramjanam Singh v.
State of Bihar AIR 1956 SC 643}.
16. the speeches made by Ministers and MLA are inadmissible in the Court of law when the
provisions of an enactment are being considered. { S R Mehrotra v. State of HP AIR 1997
HP 51}
17. An affidavit required to be filed under amended Section 26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4) of
CPC would not be evidence for the purpose of the trial. {Salem Advocate Bar Association
v UOI AIR 2005 SC 3353}
18. Statement of witnesses in FIR or before police and identification held by the Magistrate is
not substantive evidence. {Ajayab Singh v. State 1978 Raj. L.W. 9}
19. Judicial confession of a co-accused, though evidence in a generic sense, is not evidence
under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 {Bindu Gouda v. State AIR 1965 Ori 170}
Classifications of Evidence
i. Oral and documentary evidence
ii. Primary and secondary evidence
iii. Personal and Material (Real) Evidence
Iv. Direct and Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence
V. Substantive and non-substantive evidence

Vi. Best and inferior evidence

Vii. Positive and negative evidence
Viii. Prima facie evidence
Ix. Conslusive evidence
X. Corroborative evidence
Xi. Hearsey evidence
Oral and Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence consists of documents produced for inspection by the Court. According
to S3 of Indian Evidence ct, all documents including electronic records produced for inspection
of court are called as documentary evidence.
They must be produced before the court for inspection.
In Ram Swarup v. State (AIR 1958 ALL, 119), it was held that consequently a writing obtained
by the court for accused for comparison is not evidence as it is not document produced for
inspection of the Court.
Oral evidence consists of statements in courts by witnesses. According to definition of evidence,
all statements , which the court permits or requires to be made by witnesses in relation to matters
of facts under inquiry are called as oral evidence. All the statements must be permitted by the
Court or required to be produced before it by the witnesses.
The juristic concept is that the party against whom it issued has had the right and opportunity of
cross examination, for without cross examination, the statement given by a witness cannot be
called as complete evidence. (Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415) but the
statement of co-accused or tape recorded statement etc could be used by way of corroborating
statements of a person and are known as weaker type of evidence.
Oral evidence not given by human being carries no weight. For example, evidence given by
birds, animals, dog and so on is not admissible,
For example, the acceptance through parrot is not admissible (Abdul Razzak v. State of
MAharashtra 1969 SC 72 Bomb LR 646)
Primary and Secondary Evidences
According to Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, primary evidence means the document itself
produced for inspection of the court. It is also called as original evidence e.g. Registered Sale
Deed is original evidence to prove one is real owner.
As per Section 63 of the Act, Secondary Evidence means and includes:

I. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

ii. Copies made from original by mechanical process which in themselves ensure accuracy of
copy, and copies compared with such copies;
Iii. Copies made from or compared with original;
Iv. Counterpart of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
V. Oral account of contents of documents given by some person who has himself seen it.
Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence
It proves the fact in dispute directly without any inference or presumption. It establishes
conclusively the facts.
By direct evidence, it is meant that the existence of given thing or fact is proved either by its
actual production or by the testimony or admissible declaration of someone who has himself
perceived it. It is evidence which, if believed, establishes a fact in issue.
Direct Evidence consists either of testimony of witness who perceived the fact or production of
documents which constitute the fact which us in question. Direct evidence is evidence which
requires no mental process on part of tribunal of fact in order to draw the conclusion sought by
the proponent of evidence, other than acceptance of evidence itself.
For example the testimony of witness as to existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
For resting a case mainly on sole testimony of an eye witness, it should be wholly reliable- Kathi
Odhabhai Bhumabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1993 SC 1175
Evidence of eye witness who are interested witness can not be rejected on that ground alone but
their evidence is to be subjected to close scrutiny.- Nallansetty Yanadaiah v. State of AP AIR
1993 SC 1175
Evidence of interested witness has to be tested in light of probabilities and the previous
statements and surrounding circumstances- State of Punjab v. Jit Singh AIR 1994 SC 549.
When the hostile witness did not speak anything about the occurrence of incident and he deposed
that he saw the four accused going away and evidence of solitary eye witness regarding the
participation of all the accused was held to be of doubtful nature and there was also no other
direct evidence, the evidence of hostile witness would be held of no use.- Kathi Odhabhai
Bhumabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1993 SC 1175.

It would be highly unsafe to place reliance on child witness who was tutored and made to give
evidence in accordance with earlier statement recorded under Section 162 of CrPC.- Chihagan
Dame v. State of Gujarat AIR 1994 SC 454.
Merely because of interestedness of parties, their evidence cannot be rejected out rightlyChihagan Dame v. State of Gujarat AIR 1994 SC 454.
Where the prosecution witnesses are nor of same caste as the deceased nor in any way related to
him but are related to servant engaged by the deceased, on that ground alone, they cannot be
called interested witness particularly when they are shown to be inimical towards the accused. A
witness is normally considered to be an independent witness unless he springs from the source
which are likely to be tainted, such as the enmity or relationship and which make him inclined to
implicate the accused falsely- Rajaram v. State of MP AIR 1994 SC 846.
When the evidence of witnesses is corroborated by medical evidences as well as other
circumstantial evidences and their presence at place of incident was not disputed, such evidence
can not be discarded- Tarjin Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 503.
Direct Evidence is also called the percipient evidence.
Indirect Evidence/ Circumstantial Evidences
Circumstantial Evidence has not been defined in the Act. In every case, direct evidence of
facts is not available and court is bound to take help of the surrounding circumstances which
speak of forcefully as does the direct evidence. For example, road accident, rape cases etc, the
accused does not leave behind much direct evidence but the facts tell the story beyond a shadow
of doubt as the criminals execute the crime ruthlessly under cover of darkness and secrecy.
Indirect evidence otherwise known as circumstantial evidence is evidence that gives rise to a
logical inference that such a fact does exist.
According to Steve Uglow, circumstantial evidenceconsists of evidence of
circumstances, none of which speaks directly to the facts in issue but from those facts may be
inferred. Feelings of animosity towards the victim, presence in area of attack, the victims blood
on the accused clothingall these build up into a strong but inferential case.

Cross and Tapper say that circumstantial evidence may be defined as any fact from existence
of which the judge or jury may infer the existence of facts in issue
Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:
1. circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved or established;
2. Circumstances should be conclusive;
3. All facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent
with innocence of accused;
4. Circumstances should exclude possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused;
5. There must be a chain of evidence showing that the act must have been done by the
accused.
When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests
( as stated in Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP AIR 1990 SC 79)
1. The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established;
2. These circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
accused;
3. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there os no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, th ecrime was committed
by the accused and none else;
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction mcut be complete and incapable
of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence:
The SC held in Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016 that the accused had
committted crime because the circumstances have been established by chain of evidence ( Res
Gestae)
But any missing link may prove to be fatal to the prosecution theory- Umed BAi v. State of
Gujarat AIR 1978 SC 428
Thus,w here the prosecution case entirely depend upon the extra judicial confession viz, the
accused making a confession to a witness 18 to 20 days after the murder that he had committed
the murder of deceased without there being any reason as to why the accused after 20 days
would go to this witness who himself is an accused in another case and make a confession and
there being possibility that this witness to whom the confession was made, may be deposing at

the instance of police, such circumstance is of doubtful nature and the case against the accused
would be held to be not established and conviction of accused is liable to be set aside- Kailash v
State of UP A 1994 SC 470
It is one of the stated principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances.
However, the court must adopt cautious approach while basing the conviction purely on
circumstantial evidence although it is well stated principle of law that a witness may lie but not
circumstances-State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash, A 1994 SC 468
Alfred Wills in his book Circumstantial Evidence has presented the Rules as to evaluation of
Circumstantial evidence as under:
1. the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with factum probandum;
2. The burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which
infers legal accountability;
3. In all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence, the best evidence must be
adduced which the nature of case admits;
4. If there is any reasonable doubt of the guilt of accused, he is entitled as of right to be
acquitted; and
5. In order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with
innocence of accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis
than that of his guilt.
In Patta Lal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 3197), it has been held that if circumstances
established by clear and clinching evidence only indicate that it was the accused and no one else
had committed the crime. Evidentiary value of deposition establishing such circumstances which
is otherwise admissible would not diminish merely because of absence or corroboration.
Circumstantial Evidence means communication of facts, creating a network from which there is
no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit any inference except
that of the guilt of accused.
To understand the example of circumstantial evidence, let us take a situation/case.
Suppose X is accused of committing murder of Y by stabbing. Z says that he heard the shouting
of Y by saying X is stabbing me. An expert gave his opinion that Y was dead with wound of a
knife which was recovered from X. Xs neighbour has seen X running from house of Y with

knife in his hand with blood stained clothes. In this case, evidence given by expert, the neighbour
and Z are circumstantial evidence.
Case Laws on Circumstantial Evidence
In Awadhi Yadav v. State pf Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 69), the accused were held guilty where it
was established that
A. There was bitter enmity with the accused and deceased;
B. That the accused were carrying the dead body of deceased;
C. They were also carrying bhala and pharsa at that time;
D. It was also proved that the deceased had injuries caused by the weapons which the
accused were carrying and the accused could not explain as to how they happened to
carry the dead body.
In Dharma Radaka Walvi v. State of Maharashtra (2002 10 SCC 233), the accused husband
suspected the character of his wife and used to quarrel with her. She once left to her parents
house. Later he compromised and she came back. On one day, he strangled her to death and
dragged her body to nearby nala. He told the nearby persons that she was abducted by 5-6
persons in a truck. He refused to lodge a complaint. In the morning, he confessed his guilt and
lodged a complaint with police confessing his guilt. The court after scrutiny of the circumstantial
evidence, convicted him.
In Siddaiah v. State of Karnataka (2003 10 SCC 224), the husband was charged for murder of
his wife by strangulation and was held guilty by the High Court, relying on circumstances:
1. That he was a drunkard;
2. that he and his wife quarelled frequently;
3. That he admitted his presence at the time of incident;
4. That he had absconded after the incident.
Best Evidence and Inferior Evidence
The best evidence consists of statements made by a witness or contained in a document. If the
person actually perceived something by that sense by which it is capable of perception gives
statement in court and an original document is produced to court for inspection, it is called the
best evidence.

Inferior evidence is that which suggests that better evidence might be available e.g. a copy of
document which suggests that somewhere the original exists or a description of an object by a
witness when the object could be produced for inspection.
Prima Facie Evidence
According to Peter Murphy, it is the evidence which is declared (usually by a statute) to be
sufficient evidence of a fact, unless and until an opponent adduced contradictory evidence in
which case, the tribunal of fact must weigh all evidences tendered by all the parties in order to
decide whether the fact has been proved.
For example, the rule that a child aged between 7 to 12 is presumed to be doli incapax since
evidence to contradict the lack of capacity may be introduced by the prosecution.
Conclusive evidence
Conclusive evidence, as per Peter Murphy, is tantamount to rule of law, since it is evidence
which no party is permitted to contradict by evidence. Conclusive evidence, therefore, is inaptly
named and it would be preferable to stte the fact so proved as a rule of law.
For example, as per section 82 of IPC, the child under age of 7 years is to be taken as incapable
of committing a criminal offence.
Corroborative Evidence
It is evidence which concurs with another evidence. It must be taken along with substantive
evidence. When evidence is given of the fact in issue or of a relevant fact, that is called
substantive evidence. There are several statements, oral and documentary evidence which are not
substantive evidence. They are not admissible by themselves but become admissible to
corroborate or support, substantive evidence already given. Evidence to corroborate Substantive
Evidence is permitted under Sections 156, 157 and 158 of the Evidence Act. The Corroborating
evidence is also important and necessary to prove an offence.
Substantive Evidence and Non Substantive Evidence
It is that on which reliance can be placed for decision of case. It pertains about the rights an
duties and this evidence is reliable for decision of the case. It corroborates with other evidence
A non corroborative evidence is that which either corroborates the substantive evidence to
increase the credibility or which contradicts a substantive evidence to discredit.

Proved, Not Proved and Disproved

A thing is said to be proved when the court after considering the matter before it1. either believes that it exists; or
2. Considers that ti does not exist under the circumstances of the case.
Proved does not mean rigid mathematical demonstration, because it is impossible. It simply
means such evidence as would induce reasonable man to come to conclusion. It is necessary to
convince the mind about truth or falsehood of a fact- Rahim Khan v Khurshed AIR 1975 SC 290
Any suspicion cannot take place of a legal proof. For this purpose, the court has to consider the
whole material before it like evidence, result of enquiry, confession, statement of witnesses,
report, expert opinion etc while coming to conclusion.
Suspicion is no substitute for proof and in criminal law, the prosecution has to prove the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
The sister of victim and her father in law were staying in a house just opposite the house of
victim with only a rad intervening. They are the most natural witnesses who had heard the cry,
nuisance and statement of deceased. The veracity of witness is proved- Om Prakash v. State pf
Punjab AIR 1993 SC 138.
Disproved- It is just opposite of proved which means rejection.
Not Proved- the expression indicates a state pf mind between proved and disproved. It is
negative to both proof and disproof.