The concept of “burden of proof” is fundamental in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it determines which party in a legal proceeding is responsible for proving certain facts or issues. The burden of proof defines who has the obligation to produce evidence and establish facts to support their case.
What is Burden of Proof
The “burden of proof” is a fundamental legal concept that refers to the responsibility or obligation placed on a party in a legal proceeding to establish certain facts or elements of their case. It is the duty to provide evidence to convince the court or tribunal of the truth of the assertions being made. The burden of proof is central to the process of presenting and evaluating evidence in both civil and criminal cases.
Here are the key principles related to the burden of proof:
- Civil Cases: In civil cases, the burden of proof typically rests with the party who brings the lawsuit or makes a claim. This means that the plaintiff or claimant has the burden of proving their case. The standard of proof in civil cases is usually on a “balance of probabilities.” In other words, the party with the burden of proof must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that their version of the facts is true.
- Criminal Cases: In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much higher standard of proof compared to civil cases. This means that there should be no reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt based on the evidence presented.
- Shifting the Burden: In some cases, the burden of proof may shift from one party to another based on the evidence presented. For example, if a plaintiff in a civil case provides sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the burden may shift to the defendant to present evidence to counter the plaintiff’s claims.
- Statutory Burdens: In some situations, the law may impose a specific burden of proof on a particular party, irrespective of the general principles. For example, certain legal defenses or exceptions may require the accused in a criminal case to prove their applicability.
- Presumptions: The law may also establish certain presumptions, which are inferences about certain facts based on other facts. The party against whom the presumption operates may have the burden of rebutting or disproving the presumption.
Burden of Proof in Civil Cases (Sections 101 to 104)
In civil cases, the party making an assertion or claim has the burden of proving that assertion. The following sections of the Indian Evidence Act provide guidance on the burden of proof in civil cases:
Section 101 Burden of Proof
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
Section 102 On whom burden of proof lies:
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Section 103 – Burden of proof as to particular fact:
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the burden of proving that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Section 104 Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible
When the burden of proof shifts: The burden of proof may shift from one party to another based on the evidence presented. For example, if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden may shift to the defendant to prove otherwise.
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases (Section 105)
In criminal cases, the burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 105 – Burden of proving that case falls within exceptions: In criminal cases, if an accused person wishes to rely on exceptions, exemptions, or provisos, they must prove those circumstances. This section places the burden of proving these exceptions on the accused.
These provisions lay down the basic principles regarding the burden of proof in civil and criminal cases. However, there are exceptions and qualifications to these rules, and they may vary depending on the specific nature of the case, the legal issues involved, and the applicable laws.
Case Laws on Burden of Proof
| Case Law | Context | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1973) | Criminal Case – Homicide | In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused. In this case, it was emphasized that the prosecution’s case must stand on its merits, and the accused need not prove their innocence. |
| Phipson On Evidence | General Legal Reference | Phipson’s legal treatise on evidence outlines various principles related to the burden of proof, standards of proof, and the allocation of burdens in different types of cases. It is widely referenced by legal professionals and courts. |
| Indian Evidence Act, Section 101 | Statutory Provision | Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act specifies that whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of certain facts must prove that those facts exist. It sets out the basic principle of the burden of proof in civil cases. |
| Smt. Laxmi vs. Om Prakash (2001) | Civil Case – Property Dispute | In civil cases, the burden of proof generally rests on the party making an assertion or claim. This case illustrates that the plaintiff must prove their case on a balance of probabilities. |
| Hawkins v. R. & G. Webster (1949) | Civil Case – Contract Dispute | This case highlights the concept of the burden of proof in civil cases and the requirement for the party bringing the suit to prove their case. It also discusses the balance of probabilities standard. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) | Criminal Case – Murder | This case reiterates the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It underscores the requirement for the prosecution to discharge this burden. |
| State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar (2000) | Criminal Case – Narcotics | This case emphasizes the concept of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases and highlights the need for the prosecution to meet this high standard in establishing the guilt of the accused. |
| Baiju (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Reeta Kuri (2005) | Civil Case – Property Dispute | In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion. This case discusses the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove their case on a balance of probabilities. |
Section 106,107,108,109,110,111 & 112 of Evidence Act
| Section | Section Title | Explanation and Key Points | Illustration | Case Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 106 | Burden of proving facts especially within knowledge | When one party possesses special knowledge about a fact, the burden of proving that fact rests on that party. If that party doesn’t provide the necessary evidence, the court may draw adverse inferences. | Illustration: In a murder case, the deceased’s last moments are known only to the accused. The burden of explaining these circumstances falls on the accused. | Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (1956) – This case illustrates that when a person is in sole possession of knowledge of a particular fact, the burden of proof lies with that person. |
| Section 107 | Burden of proving death when the person is missing | If it is unknown whether a person is alive or dead, the burden of proving that the person is alive or dead rests on the party claiming their status. | Illustration: In a property dispute, the claimant alleges that the co-owner has been missing for seven years and is presumed dead. The claimant has the burden of proving the person’s death. | Nar Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) – This case discusses the application of Section 107 and the burden of proving a person’s death when they are missing. |
| Section 108 | Burden of proving that a person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years | If a person has not been heard of for seven years, the burden of proving that they are alive lies with the party asserting their existence. | Illustration: In a will dispute, the beneficiary claims that the testator is still alive, although no one has heard from the testator for seven years. The burden of proving the testator’s existence falls on the beneficiary. | Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) – This case discusses the application of Section 108 and the burden of proving that a person is alive when they have not been heard of for seven years. |
| Section 109 | Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord, and tenant, etc. | In cases involving relationships like partners, landlord and tenant, and principal and agent, the burden of proving the relationship rests on the party asserting it. | Illustration: In a dispute over property, a person claims to be the tenant of another. The burden of proving the tenancy relationship falls on the person claiming to be the tenant. | Anantha Ram Bhattar v. A. V. Ratnaswamy (2015) – This case discusses the application of Section 109 and the burden of proving a relationship, in this case, the landlord-tenant relationship. |
| Section 110 | Burden of proof as to ownership | In cases involving ownership of property, the burden of proving ownership lies with the party asserting ownership. | Illustration: In a property dispute, the claimant alleges ownership of a specific piece of land. The burden of proving ownership falls on the claimant. | Krishnaji Anandrao Jadhav v. Indubai Rambhau Jadhav (2016) – This case deals with the application of Section 110 and the burden of proving ownership in a property dispute. |
| Section 111 | Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in a fiduciary relationship | When one party is in a fiduciary relationship with the other, the burden of proving good faith in the transaction rests with the party in the fiduciary relationship. | Illustration: In a case involving a guardian’s transaction on behalf of a minor, the burden of proving the guardian’s good faith in the transaction lies with the guardian. | R.V. Ramaswami Nadar v. R. Rajambal (2014) – This case discusses the application of Section 111 and the burden of proving good faith in transactions involving a fiduciary relationship. |
| Section 112 | Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy | Section 112 establishes that if a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage, it is presumed to be legitimate, and this presumption is conclusive. | Illustration: A child is born to a married couple. This child is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband and wife, and this presumption cannot be rebutted. | Raghavendra Swami Mutt v. Smt. Hanumanthi Bai (2013) – This case discusses the application of Section 112 and the conclusive presumption of legitimacy when a child is born during a valid :marriage. |
Section 113A: Abetment of Suicide by a Married woman
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. It addresses situations where a married woman’s suicide has occurred within seven years of her marriage, and it raises a presumption that her abetment to suicide was due to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. However, this presumption is rebuttable.
Key points regarding Section 113A:
- Presumption: This section creates a legal presumption. It presumes that if a married woman has died by suicide within seven years of her marriage, and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, it will be presumed that they abetted her suicide.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused (the husband or his relatives) to show that the suicide was not abetted by cruelty.
- Cruelty Defined: The term “cruelty” includes both mental and physical cruelty. It covers harassment for dowry or any other conduct that drives the woman to commit suicide.
- Seven-Year Limit: The provision applies to suicides occurring within seven years of marriage. If the suicide happens after seven years, the presumption under this section does not arise.
- Rebuttable Presumption: It’s essential to understand that this presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the accused can provide evidence to counter the presumption.
Illustration: A married woman dies by suicide within five years of her marriage. Her family claims that she was subjected to persistent harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws for dowry. In this scenario, the presumption under Section 113A would be triggered, creating a presumption that the husband and his relatives abetted her suicide. However, if the husband and his relatives can provide evidence that shows that they were not responsible for her suicide, they can rebut the presumption.
Case Laws on Section 113A
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000)
This case highlighted the significance of Section 113A in cases of dowry deaths. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a woman’s suicide is within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of abetment to suicide.
Section 113A is an important legal provision that addresses a serious issue related to dowry-related harassment and cruelty leading to suicide by married women. It serves to place the burden of proof on the accused to explain the circumstances surrounding the suicide and to prove that they are not responsible for abetting it.
Retrospective application
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance and applicability of Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The Court discussed the presumption created by this section regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of her marriage due to cruelty or harassment for dowry. It highlighted that this presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the accused can present evidence to prove that they were not responsible for abetting the suicide.
The Court’s decision in this case underscores the need for a careful examination of the facts and evidence in cases involving the suicide of a married woman within seven years of marriage, especially when allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment are involved. It also clarifies the burden of proof and the potential consequences under Section 113A.
Presumption as to Dowry Death section 113B
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the presumption as to dowry death. It addresses cases where a woman has died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for dowry. Section 113B creates a legal presumption that the accused (the husband or his relatives) are responsible for the woman’s dowry death. However, this presumption is rebuttable.
Key points regarding Section 113B
- Presumption: This section establishes a legal presumption. It presumes that if a woman has died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry, it will be presumed that the husband or his relatives caused her dowry death.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused (the husband or his relatives) to show that the woman’s death was not due to cruelty or harassment for dowry.
- Unnatural Death: The section is applicable to cases of unnatural death, including cases of suicide or homicide, which are connected to dowry-related cruelty.
- Seven-Year Limit: The provision applies to dowry deaths occurring within seven years of marriage. If the dowry death happens after seven years, the presumption under this section does not arise.
- Rebuttable Presumption: It’s important to understand that this presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the accused can provide evidence to counter the presumption.
Illustration: A woman dies under suspicious circumstances within four years of her marriage. Her family alleges that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry. In this situation, the presumption under Section 113B would be triggered, creating a presumption that the husband and his relatives caused her dowry death. However, if the husband and his relatives can provide evidence that shows that they were not responsible for her death, they can rebut the presumption.
Case Laws on Dowry Death
| Case Law | Context | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) | Criminal Case – Dowry Death | The Supreme Court emphasized that when a woman has died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry, a legal presumption arises that the accused (husband or his relatives) is responsible for the dowry death. The burden of proof then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption. |
| Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2017) | Criminal Case – Dowry Death | This case reaffirmed the principles outlined in Kans Raj and emphasized the importance of the legal presumption under Section 113B. It highlighted that the prosecution must first establish the basic facts to trigger the presumption, and then the burden of proof shifts to the accused to disprove it. |
| Lakhvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021) | Criminal Case – Dowry Death | The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 113B is crucial in dowry death cases, and the legal presumption must be invoked based on the fulfillment of its conditions. The accused has the burden of proving their innocence. |
| Bans Raj v. State of Haryana (2010) | Criminal Case – Dowry Death | The case emphasized that in dowry death cases, the prosecution should focus on establishing the basic ingredients under Section 113B before the burden of proof shifts to the accused. The Court clarified that the presumption does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt but shifts the burden of proof to the accused. |
| State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (2018) | Criminal Case – Dowry Death | This case highlighted that Section 113B creates a strong presumption regarding dowry deaths. However, the presumption is rebuttable, and the accused can provide evidence to prove their innocence. It underscores the importance of the accused fulfilling this burden. |
Presumption as to consent in case of Sexual Offences: Section 114A
Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the presumption as to absence of consent in certain sexual offense cases. It introduces a legal presumption that if the prosecution can establish certain facts in sexual offense cases, it will be presumed that the victim did not consent to the sexual act.
Key points regarding Section 114A
- Presumption: This section creates a legal presumption. It presumes that if the following facts are established, it will be presumed that the victim did not consent to the sexual act:
- That the victim had not consented.
- That the accused had a sexual act with the victim.
- Rebuttable Presumption: It’s important to understand that this presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the accused can provide evidence to counter the presumption and prove that the victim did, in fact, consent to the sexual act.
- Applicability: Section 114A applies to cases involving certain sexual offenses, such as rape, where the issue of consent is a critical element of the case.
Illustration: In a rape case, the prosecution establishes that the victim had not consented to the sexual act and that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim. This evidence triggers the presumption under Section 114A, creating a presumption that the victim did not consent. However, if the accused can provide evidence or demonstrate circumstances showing that the victim did, in fact, consent, they can rebut the presumption.
