All things are presumed against a wrongdoer.
This maxim refers that all things are presumed against the spoliator so that he or she suffers the consequences of this destruction at trial and is not allowed to profit from their actions to defeat the proper conservation of evidence pending justice.
Veerabhadrappa v. Tukaram and others, 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 383
In this case court mentioned that non-production of the policy which was available with the insurance company would therefore attract the well-known maxim Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem and give rise to an adverse inference under Illustration (g) to S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and same would have gone against the insurance company.
Ramachandran v. Kanna Gounde & others, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4096
In the judgement of this case court mentioned about maxim Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem – All presumptions are against one who wrongfully dispossesses another, cannot be bulldozed into the entire case of the defendants, because, the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ – False in one thing, false in everything, cannot be adopted in the Indian settings as per the precedents of the Honourable Apex Court. However, one fact is clear that the defendants have not come forward with the clear case of their own and their written statement is fraught with falsity and mendacity also.
Irudayam Ammal v. Salayath Mary, AIR 1973 Madras 421
A Division Bench of this Court in this case quoted well known maxim Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem, “If a man by his tortious act, withholds the evidence by which the truth of his case would be manifested, every presumption to his disadvantage will be adopted” and the Court had drawn an adverse inference against the persons those who were in possession of the original Will for its non-production.