DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001

Academic Session (2023-2024)

Law of Evidence

“Presumption”

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Akshay Pal Mr. Siddharth Saxena

BALLB/015/21 Mr. Gautam Gupta

Semester VI Law of Evidence

1. Chapter I: Introduction 03

2. Chapter II: Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 04-05

3. Chapter III: Difference between the presumption of law 06

4. Chapter IV: Difference between may presume, shall 07

presume, and conclusive proof

5. Chapter V: Classification of Presumption

6. Chapter VI: Case law

 Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Black's Law Dictionary defines presumption as a legal inference, or assumption that a fact
exits, based on the known or proven existence or some other fact or group of facts.

In the Law of Evidence, presumption is not evidence in itself but an inference of the
existence or non-existence of a fact.

The process of establishing facts based on the likelihood of particular acts is known as
assumption. It is feasible to understand the details of particular activities when this possibility
has a high value. It alludes to the judgments the court made in light of the available data. The
court draws these conclusions, which can be positive or negative, using the most relevant and
reasonable method of reasoning given the facts. The most basic rule is that all supporting
facts are presumed to have been established unless proven otherwise, whenever any element
(fact) of the case is established as a core truth.

A court may presume the presence of any fact if it thinks the fact is relevant to the case and
that the fact occurred in the usual course of human behavior, natural phenomena, or business
of a public or private nature, as stated in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
 Chapter II
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The various presumptions are further described in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Under this provision, the terms “presumptions of fact” and “presumptions of law” are used
differently.

“May presume” means that the Court may regard the fact as proved unless and until it is
disproved, or may call for proof of it.

“Shall presume” means that the Court shall regard such a fact as proved, unless and until it is
disproved

“Conclusive proof” implies that, when one fact is defined by this Act as conclusive proof of
another, the Court shall, upon proof of the one fact, treat the other as proved and shall not
permit evidence to be presented with the intent to refute it.

Section 111-A Presumption as to certain offenses.

Section 112 speaks of a 'valid marriage' and a person born (a) during the continuance of a
valid marriage or (b) within 280 days after 'its dissolution', the mother remaining unmarried
113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within
a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of
her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in
section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
 Chapter III
Difference between Presumption of Fact and the presumption of law

“An inference that either confirms or disputes a questionable fact or statement is known as a
presumption. According to Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, until and unless the truth and
validity of such inference is disproved, courts and judges must infer a certain conclusion
based on the evidence that has been offered to the court. A supposition derived from one fact
may offer support in terms of another pertinent fact. To sum up, a presumption is an inference
of fact that is based on other established or known facts. As a result, a guy may be assumed to
be a thief if he is discovered in possession of goods immediately after a theft.

Section 114 of the Act lays down that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which
it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of (a) natural
events, (b) human conduct, and (c) public and private business, in their relation to the facts of
the particular case.

Kinds of Presumptions:

The Indian legal system has adopted a third classification to avoid any ambiguity in deciding
any case. The traditional approach of the Common Law system only classified presumption
under two categories, namely presumption of law and presumption of facts. Specifically,
mixed presumptions, which take into account both the law and the facts.

Presumption of Facts: Inferences that are “naturally” and “reasonably” drawn based on
observations and conditions in the “course of basic human conduct” are referred to as
“presumptions of facts.” These are also referred to as “natural or material assumptions” or
“presumptions.”

Presumption of Law: According to the law itself, presumptions of law are those inferences
and ideas that are established or assumed. Rebuttable presumptions of law and irrefutable
presumptions of law are two more divisions that can be made.
 Mixed Presumptions (Presumption of Fact and Law Both): “When the court, in its inferences,
uses a blend that is composed of different presumption classifications, i.e., Presumption of
Facts and Presumption of Law, the presumption is considered to be a Mixed Presumption.”
Only the English legal system, which expressly deals with the statute of real property, reflects
the ideas of such presumptions. However, the ideas of presumptions are expressly stated in
the Indian legal system, and the Indian Evidence Act deals with such principles.

Difference between Presumption of fact and presumption of law

Presumption of Fact Presumption of Law

The presumption of fact is based on logic, Presumption of law is based on the provision of

and goes away when explained or rebutted as provided under rule giving rise to presumption
by established positive proof.

The court can ignore presumption of law

 Chapter IV
The difference between may presume, shall presume, and conclusive proof

The term "may presume" refers to a situation in which the court exercises its discretionary
authority to assume any number of facts, recognize them as proven, or request supporting
documentation to either corroborate or reaffirm the presumption. According to Section 4 of
the Indian Evidence Act, until and until they are deemed untrue, a fact or set of facts may be
considered proved. Section 4 of this legislation defines the term "May Presume" as relating to
rebuttable presumption and not a field of law.

On the other hand, shall suppose implies a firm claim or the desire to ascertain any
[Link] "Shall Presume" principle is explained in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. It
states that the court has presumed facts or groups of facts and will consider them proved until
refuted by the opposing party. The court does not have any discretion in applying this
presumption. According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, the idea of "shall presume"
is a field of jurisprudence and can also be referred to as "presumption of law," "artificial
presumption," "obligatory presumption," or "rebuttable presumption of law."

Conclusive Presumptions/Proofs: These are among the strongest presumptions that a court
may make, but they are also not entirely grounded in logic; rather, the court feels that these
presumptions are made for the benefit or upbringing of society. The facts presumed under
conclusive proofs cannot be contested, even if the assumption is contested on the basis of
probative evidence. This is because the law has absolute authority over conclusive proofs and
will not permit any proofs that contradict the presumption. This is the strongest type of
presumption now in use, and the most significant laws pertaining to the irrebuttable form of
presumptions, or conclusive presumption, are found in Sections 41, 112, and 113 of the
Evidence Act and S. 82 of the Indian Penal Code.
Chapter V
Classification of Presumption

Presumption as Legitimacy

Section 112 of the IEA, 1872, which is rebuttable, presumes the child's
legitimacy to be true. As a person's status is established by birth, validity is
strongly presumed by the law. This clause formalizes the legal doctrine that a
child born when a lawful marriage is still in effect or within 280 days of its
dissolution with the mother remaining single, is prima facie proof of the kid's
legitimacy.

The presumption of legitimacy can be refuted by providing strong evidence that

the husband and wife were not living close to one another at the time the kid
could have been born. Therefore, a child's legitimacy is evaluated from the time
of birth, and proof of non-access must be presented from the time of conception
onward.

The underlying assumption of this section is that, as a matter of public policy, it

is inappropriate to look into the paternity of a child whose parents "had access"
to one another.

A marriage cannot be disproved or refuted by any condition or by a mere

balance of possibilities; only specific proof of lack of access is sufficient.
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply where maternity,
not paternity, is at issue. Maternity is always an empirical truth, while paternity
is always assumed.
Presumption as to Abetment of Suicide by a Married Woman (Presumption of
Fact)

When it is unclear whether a woman's suicide was encouraged by her husband

or a relative of her husband and it is established that she committed suicide
within seven years of the date of her marriage and that her husband or the
relevant relative had treated her cruelly, the court may infer, taking into account
all other circumstances of the case, that the suicide was encouraged by her
husband or the relevant relative of her husband.

In section 113-A, the word "may presume" denotes the existence of a Section 4
presumption of fact. Such assumptions are "those natural inferences which the
'common course of natural events,' human conduct, and public and private
business indicate to us," according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The court
has the discretion to make a presumption or not to make one.

Presumption as Dowry Death

The legislature has chosen to employ the phrase "must suppose" as a

presumption of law in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, meaning that the court
must draw the conclusion and has no other choice. In spite of the fact that it
cannot be easily refuted, it is rebuttable. The evidence must be solid, distinct,
convincing, and of a conclusive type in order to refute or repel it.

In accordance with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, anytime the term
"conclusive proof" is used, it means that the court must accept the proof of one
fact as conclusive proof of the other and must not permit the presentation of
evidence with the intent to refute it. and subsequently distributed the burdens of
proof in cases brought under Section 304-B.
Until very strong, convincing, and conclusive evidence is presented in the
accused's defence that the person has not committed dowry death, the court is
required to accept the fact of dowry death when it is demonstrated that a woman
was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry prior to her
death as proven.

Conclusion

Presumptions are arbitrary additions to the law that do not need proof of a fact. A fact does
not need to be proven when a court assumes it. Under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872,
presumptions' use may be mostly uncharted territory. However, how it is applied has
significant ramifications for how we see the "burden of proof" on the prosecution and
defense.