Court may presume existence of certain facts

(1) The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations. The Court may presume that— (a) a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; (b) an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars; (c) a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration; (d) a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence; (e) judicial and official acts have been regularly performed; (f) the common course of business has been followed in particular cases; (g) evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; (h) if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him; (i) when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. (2) The Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:— (i) as to Illustration (a)—a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business;