Burden of Proof: The Law and the Case Laws

The Author, Ridhi Seth, is a 2nd year BBA LLB student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS), Delhi. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

ABSTRACT

The parties to a suit make numerous claims during the trial. When either of the party states something, considering it to be a well-established fact, they themselves need to prove its validity and truthfulness. The concept is called ‘Burden of proof’ and it has been mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the VIIth Chapter, which covers Section 101 to Section 114A. It is considered to be a duty of the parties to bring to the court, only which they believe to be true and can prove their belief beyond doubt. This assists the court greatly. Although, no definition of the term “burden of proof” is mentioned in the VIIth chapter, the requirements of the same are mentioned therein.

In the normal course, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove that he/she had suffered an injury or had been affected beyond reasonable belief. Due to them being the one instituting the case, it was believed that they would be able to provide the most foolproof evidence. On the other hand, in case of heinous crimes this burden shifts on the accused to prove his/her innocence. In some cases, the burden keeps shifting from party to party and in others, it stays with one party only.

Sections 101 to 103 of the Act deal with the burden of proof in a general sense, whereas Sections 104 to 106 deal with burden of proof in certain specific cases wherein a specific person is involved.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Chapter VII

We shall now look at the statute for a better and in-depth understanding of the topic in hand.

Section 101 states that “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.” In a nutshell, this section states that whenever any person states a fact in front of the court, the most obvious reason behind that is to satisfy the court so that they give a decision in his or her favour. For that, it is the duty of the person concerned to prove the facts in totality by himself.

Section 102 states that “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.” This Section attempts to clarify the issue ‘on whom does the burden actually lie?’ It mentions that the person, who would suffer the consequences if the fact that was stated, is not proved. So, in most cases the person filing the suit is the one who has the burden of proof.

Section 103 states that, “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 proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” Many times in the court, either of the parties narrate incidents and a number of facts in relation to their claims. So, when a person’s motive behind narrating such an incident is to make the court believe it; which it is in almost every case, it is up to them to prove everything they say. They should satisfy the court of the undoubtful existence of the story being q narrated.

Section 104 states that, “Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.—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.” When a chain of facts i.e. one fact right after the other is placed in front of the court, then the burden to prove the first fact so that another fact can be proved lies on the person willing to prove that another fact, which in most cases is the same person so he basically has to prove chain of facts.

Section 105 states that, “Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—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.” As we are aware, some general exceptions are mentioned in the 4^th Chapter of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from Section 76 to Section 106. In some cases, people are accused of certain crimes that come under the category of general exceptions. In these cases, if proved, the accused is set free for no fault being of his own and because of the information mentioned in the statute. The real deal is again to prove that what he/she has been accused of, was done under certain circumstances which fall in the category of these general exceptions as the basic presumption in law is that such a circumstance never existed in the first place.

Section 106 states that, “Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” This means that when something, a fact is in the knowledge of someone i.e. they believe in its existence and truth, the burden to prove the same lies on them.

The procedure followed in civil and criminal proceedings is a little different, so as a result the burden of proof involved in these cases is also dealt with differently.

CRIMINAL CASES

In criminal cases, it is the prosecution on which the burden generally lies, since they have been actually affected it is their duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt in front of the court, that the accused had actually committed the crime. Examination of the defendant’s evidence before the prosecution by the court was held to be unlawful in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sher Singh.[1] The presumption in these cases is that, the accused is treated to be innocent until actually proven guilty.

The burden can also shift in these types of cases. This generally happens when the case lies under one of the exceptions mentioned in the 4^th Chapter of the IPC, 1860; the burden then shifts to the accused to prove that the act did actually fall under one of the mentioned exceptions and that he is innocent on that account. [2]

In the case of KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, Nanavati who was accused of a murder claimed the defence of grave and sudden provocation. The presumption of innocence to the accused brought the burden on the prosecution initially, but with the help of Section 105 of the Act, it later shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused failed in taking the defence, and hence was convicted of murder. [3]

Acquittal of the accused takes place when the prosecution fails to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[4] Once, the prosecution has successfully laid down and proved all the facts and other things necessary for the case, the burden of proof then shifts to the accused present his side in totality, this is known as the reverse onus clause. This was laid down in the case of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors. [5] Although, it is to be noted that the burden of the accused and that of the prosecution are very different. The principle evidence has to be proved by the prosecution only and the accused has to keep in mind ‘preponderance of probability’ while proving his case. This means he has to prove only the actual or the already stated facts.

CIVIL CASES

In the civil cases, it is stated that the pleading should only contain the most crucial facts written in a brief form.[6] These facts are of two types; the fact in dispute (factum probandum) and the evidential fact (factum probans), evidence is a term which is a nexus between these two terms. Factum probandum is an assumption and is general hypothetical in nature, whereas factum probans is something solid in existence which is used to prove the existence of the fact in dispute.

The burden of proof in civil cases is on the plaintiff i.e. the one instituting the suit. This means that if the plaintiff is unable to furnish the appropriate and is unable to convince the court of the existence of the facts being stated, he will lose the case. Sometimes, it even happens that when the defendant does not state anything or bring forward to defend himself, he still wins on the account of inactivity of the part of the plaintiff. Attempts to tamper the plaintiff’s case by the defendant is a common phenomenon therefore.

Case laws

In the case of Mehboob Sad v. Union of India[7], a person was found dead on account of falling out of a train in motion. The defendants claimed that the person was travelling without a ticket and so he was not a valid passenger. To this, the court held that it was the duty of the defendants to prove the fact they claim, to be existing in reality, and hence to be true. Hence, here the burden of proof lied on the defendants.

Another case of Special Development Area V. Pooran Lal[8]; here the plaintiff lodged a complaint regarding some sort of unauthorised construction taking place in a particular land which he was claiming to be belonging to him. The court held that it is up to the complainant to prove if the land did actually belong to him and that the construction was actually unauthorised in nature.

In this new age, evidences come many a times in an electronic form but the statute still lacks the inclusion of what is to be done when this happens.

In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar V. Kailash Kusharao Gorantyal and Ors.[9] ; The evidence was submitted in the electronic form. The most basic issue in such a case would be the authenticity of the same. On this, the court held that the burden of proof in such cases would most definitely fall on the one producing it, or on the one who produces it to prove another fact.

Presumption under Burden of Proof

Presumptions are the little conclusions made by the court on the basis of some of the facts present. When the court ‘presumes’ something to be true, it relieves the party presenting it of the burden of proof in that particular regard.

There are basically three types of presumptions;

1. Factual Presumption
2. Legal Presumption
3. Mixed Presumption

Mostly, the documentary evidence is subject to a number of presumptions. For eg. When a certified copy of an original document is presented, it is presumed by the court that it is a genuine copy under section 79 of the act. Similarly, the power of attorney is presumed to be a genuine authorised person as per section 85 of the act.

CONCLUSION

Burden of proof is an important concept which has been discussed in intricate details in the Evidence Act. With regular developments in the same, it would benefit in the smooth proceedings of the cases. Some changes relating to the burden of proof lying majorly on the prosecution in criminal cases should be made. It is a well discussed topic, this phenomena or technique generally tends to benefit the accused and so some growth is necessary in this domain. With major cases, this topic has been in the mainstream and will help in the enhancement of our legal system majorly.

Picture Source :