Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur

ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

ASSIGNMENT

Topic: Burden of proof under IEA,1872

Submitted to: Asst. Prof. Priya Awasthi

Submitted by: Sambhav patel

I would like to express my special thanks to my teacher Mrs. Priya Awasthi who gave me
the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the Burden of Proof under
Indian Evidence act, 1872. Who also helped me in completing my project. I came to
know about so many new things. I am really thankful to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my seniors and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Sambhav patel
[Link].B(Hons.)
 Burden of Proof under Indian Evidence act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides the framework for the admissibility and proof of
evidence in Indian courts. One of the fundamental principles of the Act is the burden of
proof, which determines who has the responsibility to prove or disprove a fact in a legal
proceeding. This assignment aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, sections 101 to 103 deal with the burden of proof
in general, whereas sections 104 to 106 deal with the situation where the burden of
proof is placed on a specific individual. The concepts of Onus Probandi and Factum
Probans include the underlying principles of the burden of proof. Onus Probandi is a
general rule that requires a person asserting the positive to prove it. A person who
maintains an affirmative stance has the onus probandi. The onus probandi is on the
party seeking to strengthen his case with a specific fact that he is said to be aware of.

Factum Probans and Factum Probandum

Order 6, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, states that the pleading shall only
contain important facts that must be shown in a concise form Evidence is a relative term
that refers to a connection between two facts: the fact in dispute (factum probandum), or
statement to be proven, and the evidential fact (factum probans), or material
corroborating the proposition. The former is inherently hypothetical; the latter is
advanced as fact in order to persuade the court that the former is likewise true.
According to the fundamental premise of criminal law, the accused should be deemed
innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has the first
burden of proving that the accused has committed a crime in a criminal proceeding.

In the case of the State of Rajasthan vs Sher Singh, 1994, it was held that it was
unlawful to examine defence evidence before prosecution evidence in criminal
proceedings.

In criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The prosecution must show
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty until the prosecution proves
otherwise. The court shall assume that the accused is innocent. It was held in the case
of Md. Allmuddin v. State of Assam, 1992, that the defence version may even be
false, nevertheless, the prosecution cannot derive any advantage from the falsity or
other infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden
of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is defined under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Anyone who wants a court to rule on a legal right or responsibility based on facts he
claims must first show that such facts exist. The second Section of the statute specifies
that when a person is required to show the existence of a fact, that person shall also
bear the burden of proof.

As a result, a person seeking a favourable decision from the court must provide
evidence in support of his case, according to this clause. The usual rule is that the party
that asserts a truth bears the burden of proof, not the side that denies it.
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Who bears the burden of proof - In a suit or procedure, the person who would fail if no
evidence was presented on either side has the burden of proof.

Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act states:

"The burden of proof as to any specific fact is with the person who asks the court to
believe in its existence unless any law provides that the burden of proof rests with any
particular individual."

Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the burden of proof is on the person
giving the evidence to prove the facts that must be shown in order for the evidence to
be admissible.

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act

When an accused is charged with criminal conduct, the burden of proof is placed on the
accused to establish the circumstances that gave rise to the accusation under any
general exceptions provided by the Indian Penal Code or any other particular
legislation. Under this Section, the prosecution's duty is limited to establishing the
accused's guilt; once that is established, the burden transfers to the accused, who has
the advantage of relying on general exceptions to the IPC or Criminal Procedure Code.

This is one of the unique traits that only applies in criminal proceedings. As a result,
according to Section 105 of the Act, the onus of evidence is on the accused to know
about every incident that has occurred. Additionally, this is referred to as the reverse
onus clause.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 106 advances the concept of a fair trial by making it easier to establish all
conceivable facts and removing the burden of proving anything that is impossible and in
the accused's favour. Additionally, it allows the accused to challenge the presumption of
facts drawn from the sequence of events. However, it is observed that the prosecution
exploits this clause and attempts to evade his responsibilities to establish the legal
burden.

The burden of proof is a legal concept that determines which party in a dispute has the
responsibility to provide evidence to support their claims. Generally, the burden of proof
rests on the party who makes the affirmative claim or assertion.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must prove the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the burden of proof may be
on either the plaintiff or defendant, depending on the nature of the claim. The burden of
proof is an important aspect of the legal system, as it ensures that the party making a
claim has to support it with evidence. This helps to ensure that verdicts and judgments
are based on facts rather than speculation or hearsay.

In conclusion, the burden of proof is a fundamental concept in the legal system that
determines which party has the responsibility to provide evidence to support their
claims. It is an essential element of a fair and just legal system, ensuring that verdicts
and judgments are based on evidence and not just speculation or hearsay.