he (PW-2) had falsely implicated the appellant. During course of examination, it was suggested to PW2 that there was some dispute between him and the appellant on account of monetary transaction. Though PW2 accepted that he had demanded a hand loan from the accused, he has denied that appellant had mortgaged his bike with the friend of PW2 and has 7 Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 116 13also denied the receipt of hand loan from the appellant. Section 103 of the Evidence Act, mandates that burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe its existence. As such, burden was on the appellant to tender evidence for the purpose of proving the alleged financial transaction. Apart from making a bald statement in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no efforts have been made by the appellant to either examine the friend of PW2 as a witness or tender any documentary evidence to prove the so called financial