Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
General Concept
The responsibility to prove a thing is called burden of proof. When a person is required to
prove the existence or truthfulness of a fact, he is said to have the burden of proving that fact.
In a case, many facts are alleged and they need to be proved before the court can base its
judgment on such facts. The burden of proof is the obligation on a party to establish such
facts in issue or relevant facts in a case to the required degree of certainty in order to prove
its case. For example, in a case of murder, prosecution may allege that all the conditions
constituting a murder are fulfilled. All such conditions are facts in issue and there is an
obligation to prove their existence. This obligation is a burden of proof. In general, every
party has to prove a fact that goes in his favour or against his opponent, this obligation is
nothing but burden of proof. Section 101 defines burden of proof as follows - When a person
is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that
person.
The important question is who is supposed to prove the various facts alleged in a case. In
other words, on whom should the burden of proving a fact lie? The rules for allocation of
burden of proof are governed primarily by the provisions in Section 101 to 105. The rules
propounded by these sections can be categorized as General rules and Specific rules.
General rules
Burden of proof –
As per Section 101, specifies the basic rule about who is supposed to prove a fact. It says
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.
For example, A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which
A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime. Another example -
A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B,
by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the
existence of those facts.
Types of fact:
Facts can be put in two categories –
i.) those that positively affirm something, and
ii.) those that deny something.
For example, the statement, "A is the owner of this land" is an affirmative statement, while
"B is not the owner of this land" is a denial. The rule given in Section 101 means that the
person who asserts the affirmative of an issue, the burden of proof lies on his to prove it.
Thus, the person who makes the statement that "A is the owner of the land", has the burden
to prove it. This rule is useful for determining the ownership of the initial burden. Whoever
wishes the court to take certain action against the opposite party based on certain facts, he
ought to first prove those facts.
Thus, the court should arrive at the substance of the issue and should require that party to
begin who in substance, though may not be in form, alleges the affirmative of the issue.
Onus of proof:
As per Section 102, 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.
The following illustrations explain this point -
Illustration 1- A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was
left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be
entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
Illustration 2 - A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but
B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either
side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the
burden of proof is on B.
Specific Rules
These rules specifically put the burden on proving certain facts on particular persons -
Rules of Presumption –
Section 107 and 108 say that if a person was known to be alive within 30 yrs the
presumption is that he is alive and if the person has not been heard of for seven years by
those who have naturally heard from him if he had been alive, the presumption is that the
person is death. But no presumption can be draw as to the time of death. Sections
109 establishes the burden in case of some relations such as landlord and tenant, principle
and agent etc. Further sections specify the rules about burden of proof in case of terrorism,
dowry death, and rape.
Exceptions -
Exception 1 Presumption of innocence - The general rule in criminal cases is that the
accused is presumed innocent. It is the prosecution who is required to establish the guilt of
the accused without any doubt. At the same time, the accused is not required to prove his
innocence without any doubt but only has to create reasonable doubt that he may not be
guilty.
Section 105 specifies an exception to this general rule. When an accused claims the benefit
of the General Exception clauses of IPC, the burden of proving that he is entitled to such
benefit is upon him.
For example, if an accused claims the benefit of insanity in a murder trial, it is up to the
accused to prove that he was insane at the time of committing the crime.
In the case of K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962, SC explained this point. In
this case, Nanavati was accused of murdering Prem Ahuja, his wife's paramour, while
Nanavati claimed innocence on account of grave and sudden provocation. The defence's
claim was that when Nanavati met Prem at the latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out of
the bath dressed only in a towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him
if he intends to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry every
woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Prem go for the gun, enclosed
in a brown packet, Nanavati too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand caused
the gun to go off and instantly kill him.
Here, SC held that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused as a general
rule and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt.
But when an accused relies upon the general exception or proviso contained in any other part
of the Penal Code, Section 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused
and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Thus, it was upon the
defence to prove that there existed a grave and sudden provocation. In absence of such proof,
Nanavati was convicted of murder.
Exception 2 - Admission - A fact which has been admitted by a party and which is against
the interest of that party, is held against the party. If the fact is contested by the party, then
the burden of proof rests upon the party who made the admission. For example, A was
recorded as saying that he committed theft at the said premises. If A wants to deny this
admission, the burden of proof rests on A to prove so.
Thus, when the presumption of the court is in favour of a party, the burden of disproving it
rests on the opposite party.