The correct answer is (b), Pikard Vs. Sears.
Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “the burden of proving any fact lies on the person who would be affected by its not being proved.” This means that the person who is making a claim has to provide evidence to support that claim. If they cannot provide evidence, then the claim is not considered to be true.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that states that “the thing speaks for itself.” This means that if there is evidence that something happened, and there is no other reasonable explanation for how it happened, then the court can infer that the person who is responsible for the thing happening is also responsible for the evidence.
In the case of Pikard Vs. Sears, the plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a car. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was at fault for the accident. However, the court found that the evidence showed that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence. The court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to infer that the defendant was responsible for the accident.
The other options are incorrect because they do not involve the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
(a) Banwari Lal Vs. Sukhdarshan is a case about the burden of proof. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.
(c) B. Coleman Vs. P.P. Das Gupta is a case about the admissibility of evidence. The court held that evidence is admissible if it is relevant and reliable.
(d) Vishnu Datt Sharma Vs. Dayasharan is a case about the presumption of innocence. The court held that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.