THE STIGMATIZATION OF ‘VICTIM’ IN CASE OF FALSE PROSECUTION IN INDIA

Abstract

When the case[1] establish false, would those same facts also lead to a finding of liability for false prosecution? In an earlier discussion of that case, it held that the Minister was liable in damages in respect of false prosecution. In order to prove the element of malice in this case, it must be ascertained whether the Inspector did anything more than one would expect of a police officer in circumstances which is to give a fair and honest statement of the facts to the prosecutor, leaving it to the latter to decide whether to prosecutor[2]. It has been held that negligence or gross negligence short of dolus eventualis[3] would not suffice: the defendant must have been aware of the false act of his or her conduct in initiating or continuing the prosecution, but nevertheless continued to act recklessly regarding the consequences of his or her conduct[4].