Distinction in standard of proof in civil and criminal cases: Explaining Section 3, 101, 102, 110 of the Evidence Act, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the test of “Proved”, “Disproved” and “Not Proved” in a civil or a criminal case is one and the same. However, it is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubt, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiff’s burden of proof would stand discharged. See: (i) V.D. Jhingan vs. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762 (Three-Judge Bench) (ii) R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmgu Viswasaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752 22.3. Standard of proof when civil case involving allegation of charges of criminal or fraudulent character: It is apparent from definitions of the words ‘proved’, ‘disproved’ and ‘not proved’ given in Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act that it applies the same standard of proof in all civil cases. It makes no difference between cases in which charges of a fraudulent or criminal character are made and cases in which such charges are not made. But this is not to say that the Court will not, while striking the balance of probability, keep in mind the presumption of honesty or innocence or the nature of the crime or fraud charged. It is wrong to insist that such charges must be proved clearly and beyond reasonable doubt. See: Gulabchand vs. Kudilal, AIR 1966 SC 1734 (Five-Judge Bench)