Table of Contents
Introduction
The term ‘Burden of Proof’ in the Indian Evidence Act refers to the responsibility of providing evidence to support claims, as specified in Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
In legal proceedings, the concept of the burden of proof is based on two principles: Onus Probandi and Factum Probans. Onus Probandi refers to the responsibility of the party making a claim to provide evidence to support it. Factum Probans is the actual evidence or proof presented by that party in support of their claim. In simple terms, the burden of proof lies on the party making a claim to provide sufficient evidence or proof to substantiate it in a legal proceeding.
After the Bharatiya Sakshya Act of 2023, Section 101 was moved to Section 104. However, the definition and process remained unchanged.
The section in the Indian Evidence Act
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:
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.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act:
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 of the Indian Evidence Act:
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 proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act:
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Classification of Burden of Proof
According to Indian law, the person who makes a claim or asserts a fact has the responsibility to provide evidence to support it. This is known as the burden of proof. However, in certain legal circumstances, exceptions may apply. It’s important to note that this burden of proof has three different interpretations.
- Persuasive Burden: The burden of persuasion refers to the responsibility of a party to convince a judge or jury that a fact or element is more likely true than not. This means that it is the duty of the party to present evidence that will persuade the fact-finder that a particular proposition of fact is indeed true.
- Evidential of Burden: The evidential burden of proof refers to the obligation of providing sufficient evidence to raise a specific issue, rather than providing enough evidence to establish the facts.
- Admissibility of Evidence: The burden of Proof also applies to the admissibility of evidence. This means that the party introducing evidence must ensure that it meets the legal standards and rules of evidence to be admissible in court.
Burden of Proof in Civil and Criminal Cases
Civil cases: In civil lawsuits, such as personal injury cases, the burden of proof lies in providing a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence provided must show that it is more likely that something is true rather than untrue. In personal injury cases, the victim only needs to convince the judge or jury that their claim is true with a likelihood of over 50 percent. The quality of the evidence is more important than the quantity when determining if there is a preponderance of the evidence.
Criminal cases: In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime. If there is any reasonable uncertainty or doubt, the defendant cannot be convicted by a judge or jury.
However, there is no exact definition of what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not reasonable doubt exists depends on how the judge or jury views a particular case, based on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all evidence.
Some courts explain that beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is “proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.” It is an incredibly high burden of proof that the prosecution must meet. Therefore, the best way to defend yourself when accused of a crime is by asserting a very strong defense and raising any legitimate doubts that can prevent the state from satisfying its burden of proof.
Landmark cases of Burden of Proof
In the case of V. Kalyanaswamy vs. L. Bakthavatsalam, the Supreme Court has clarified that when dealing with a will, the person presenting the will has the burden to prove its validity and dispel any suspicions. However, if the will is alleged to be a result of coercion, undue influence, or fraud, the responsibility shifts to the party opposing the will to prove these allegations.
In the case of Mahboob Sab vs. Union of India, a person fell from a moving train and a lawsuit was filed. The court ruled that the responsibility of proving a specific claim lies on the party making it. In this case, the defendants were required to prove their claim that the person did not possess a valid ticket as they had alleged.
In the case of M.S. Reddy vs. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore, it was established that the prosecution has the initial burden of proof. It is unjust to require the defendant to shoulder this burden. The prosecution must construct its case using its own evidence. Allowing defendants to present their evidence before the prosecution could provide an opportunity for the prosecution to gain an advantage, potentially using tactics to weaken the case.
In the legal case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, electronic evidence was presented as part of the proceedings. The court made an important decision in this case. It ruled that the party bringing forward electronic evidence must prove its authenticity and accuracy.
To put it simply, if you decide to present electronic evidence in court, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it is genuine and reliable. The burden of proof falls on the party that introduced the electronic document.
Conclusion
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 outlines the concept of the burden of proof, which varies between civil and criminal cases based on their specific requirements. In general, the person who is seeking relief or judgment from the court bears the burden of proof, unless the law states otherwise. The fundamental principle is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which means that the accuser or plaintiff is responsible for proving the guilt of the accused person.
By: Aman Bijoriya ( 3rd year – B.A.LL.B).
Outstanding feature