The Indian Evidence Act comprehensively addresses the concept of the Burden Of Proof, which is the responsibility to establish a claim in legal proceedings. This responsibility generally rests upon the party asserting a fact rather than the one denying it, as based on the Latin maxim ‘eiincumbit qui delicit con qui negat.’ This legal principle is crucial in both criminal and civil cases, and it is governed by various sections of the Indian Evidence Act, which can be categorized into two main types:
- the Burden Of Proof as a matter of substantive law or pleading (Section 101) and
- the Onus Of Proof or Onus Probandi (Section 102).
Burden of Proof as a Matter of Substantive Law or Pleading (Section 101)
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the foundation for the Burden Of Proof. It states that the party seeking a favorable judgment must prove the necessary facts to establish their case. In criminal cases, this initial burden falls upon the prosecution, while in civil cases, it rests on the plaintiff to substantiate their claims. Importantly, this initial burden does not shift throughout the course of the trial.
Onus of Proof or Onus Probandi (Section 102)
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the concept of the Onus Of Proof or Onus Probandi, which can shift during the course of a case. Initially, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, providing enough evidence to support their claim. Once the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defendant to present rebutting evidence. This shift of onus can occur multiple times as the case develops, but it invariably starts with the party making the initial claim. Section 102 reinforces the fundamental principle that the responsibility of proving a fact lies with the party affirming it.
RULES OF BURDEN OF PROOF
The Indian Evidence Act also provides several specific rules related to the Burden Of Proof in various circumstances:
- Burden of Proving a Particular Fact (Section 103):
This section stipulates that the burden of proving a specific fact lies with the person who seeks the court’s belief in its existence. This is distinct from Section 101, which concerns the overall burden of proving the entire case.
- Burden of Proving a Fact to Make Evidence Admissible (Section 104):
Section 104 places the burden of proving any fact necessary to enable a person to present evidence of another fact on the party wishing to provide such evidence.
- Burden of Proving that the Case of the Accused Falls Within Exceptions (Section 105):
In criminal cases, when an accused person’s defense relies on exceptions under the Indian Penal Code or other laws, the burden of proving the existence of such circumstances rests on the accused. The court presumes the absence of such circumstances unless proven otherwise.
- Burden of Proving a Fact Especially Within Knowledge (Section 106):
When a fact is particularly within the knowledge of a specific individual, that person bears the burden of proving it.
- Burden of Proving Death of a Person (Section 107):
In cases where it is in question whether a person is alive or dead, if it’s shown that the person was alive within the last 30 years, the burden of proving their death falls upon the party asserting it.
- Burden of Proving that a Person Is Alive (Section 108):
If a person has not been heard from for seven years by those who would typically have heard of them if they were alive, the burden of proving that the person is still living shifts to the party claiming their continued existence.
- Burden of Proof as to Relationship in Certain Cases (Section 109):
When it is questioned whether persons stand in specific relationships like partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden of proving that they do not hold these relationships is on the party making such a claim.
- Burden of Proving Ownership (Section 110):
In cases where possession of an item is established, the burden of proving that the possessor is not the owner falls on the party asserting this.
- Proof of Good Faith in Transactions (Section 111):
Section 111 deals with transactions involving parties in positions of active confidence. In cases where the good faith of a transaction is questioned, the burden of proving such good faith falls on the party in the position of active confidence.
- Legitimacy of a Child (Section 112):
This section addresses the legitimacy of a child born during wedlock. It presumes legitimacy if the child is born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution, provided the mother remains unmarried. This presumption is conclusive unless non-access between the parties is proven.
- Abetment of Suicide (Section 113A):
Section 113A introduces a presumption regarding abetment of suicide, primarily in dowry-related cases. If a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage, and there’s evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment by her husband or in-laws, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to demonstrate that the suicide was not abetted.
12. Dowry Death (Section 113B):
In cases involving the death of a woman within seven years of marriage due to cruelty or harassment for dowry, Section 113B presumes it to be a dowry death. The court assumes that the accused is responsible for dowry demands, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate otherwise.
- Absence of Consent in Certain Prosecutions for Rape (Section 114A):
This section deals with the presumption of absence of consent in certain sexual assault cases. It.. presumes a lack of consent when sexual intercourse is proven, and the victim states it was without her consent. However, the accused can rebut this presumption by providing contrary evidence.
In conclusion, the Indian Evidence Act meticulously defines the rules and principles related to the Burden Of Proof in various legal scenarios. From the initial burden under Section 101 to the shifting onus of proof in Section 102 and the specific rules outlined in Sections 103 to 114A, this legislation forms the bedrock of evidentiary standards and procedures in Indian jurisprudence, ensuring fairness and justice in the legal system.
