“May presume”—Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such

fact as proved, unless and until t is disproved, or may call for proof of it. “Shall presume”—.Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. “Conclusive proof”—When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. What is a presumption :- Presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is
rule which treats an unknown fact as proved on proof or admission of certain other fact. It means a rule of law that courts shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or from a particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumptions help in determining the probative force of evidence by bringing the estimation of probative force under some inflexible rules excluding judicial discretion. The following is a classification of presumptions: 1. Presumptions of Fact or Natural Presumptions :- These are inferences which the mind naturally and logically draws from given facts without the help of legal directions. Such inferences are drawn not by virtue of any rule of law, but by the spontaneous operation of our reasoning faculty. These presumptions fall more properly within the province of logic and do not constitute a branch of jurisprudence. They are always permissive, rebuttable, and do not constitute a branch of Jurisprudence. They are indicated in the Act by the expression ‘may presume’ (Ss. 86 to 88, 90 and 114) 2. Presumptions of Law or Artificial Presumptions :- They are always obligatory, may be rebuttable or irrebuttable and constitute a branch of Jurisprudence. (2a) Rebuttable Presumptions of Law :- They are indicated in the Act by the expression “shall presume” (Ss. 79 to 85, 89 and 105) (2b) Irrebuttable Presumptions of Law :- They are indicated in the Act by the expression “conclusive proof (Ss. 41, 112 and 113). Presumptions of fact :- The first two parts of section 4 deal with presumption of fact. The first gives the court the discretionary power to presume the existence of a fact, that is to say, that the court may regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. Where a doctor gave an injection for determination of pregnancy which resulted in miscarriage and death of the woman, it was held that the doctor could be presumed to know the side-effects of the medicine as doctors are generally informed of such effects by the manufacturers of medicines.’ The court may even require further proof of the fact presumed. A presumption of this kind is wholly in the discretion of the court. The Court may or may not presume the existence of the fact in question. For example, where a person is shown to be in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft, the court may presume that he was the thief himself or had knowledge of the fact that the property in question was stolen. A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. The presumption of a conspiracy to commit murder could not be drawn where the statements of the witnesses did not afford any foundation for the same.

May Presume (Theft Cases):- Presumptions of fact are permissive in the sense that the court has discretion
to draw or not to draw them? They are also rebuttable as their evidentiary value may be negatived by contrary proof. Thus these presumptions afford a provisional proof. That a person found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen is a presumption of this type. (Section 114(a). For other illustrations of presumptions of fact (see sections 86 to 88, 90 and 114).

Shall presume (Rape Cases) :- There being presumptions of law are always obligatory; and a judge
cannot refuse to draw the presumption. Such presumptions are either (1) rebuttable or (2) irrebuttable. Rebuttable presumptions of law are indicated by the expression ‘shall presume’. They hold good unless and until there is contrary evidence, e.g., the Court shall presume the genuineness of every Government publication. (Section 84). Section 79 to sec-85 deals with the presumption of documents in all these court shall presume the authentication of the document.

Conclusive proof (irrebuttable) ( Certified Copy):- Whenever it is mentioned that a fact is a ‘conclusive proof’ of another fact, the court has no discretion at all and cannot call upon a party to prove that fact, e.g. section 41 of the Act provides inter alia that a final judgment, order or decree of a competent court in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is a conclusive proof of that legal character. But Courts are not bound to treat a registration endorsement as conclusive proof. There is no difference between the phrases ‘conclusive evidence’ and ‘conclusive proof as both are cases of irrebuttable nature.
Presumptions under Indian Evidence Act as per divisions can be determined by taking a close consideration of following provisions. 1. Presumptions of Documents Under section 79 to sec-90-A (Sec-79 to 85 deals with Shall presume whereas sec-86 to 90a deals with May presume. Presumptions under burden of proof ( Sec-111 A to 114-A) Sec-114 illustration deals with may presume.

2.

Presumptions as to documents :- Sections 79 to 90.—In raising a presumption an inference is drawn
by the Court from certain facts in supersession of any other mode of proof. The word presumption is not defined in the Evidence Act. Stephen defines it as a rule of law that Courts and Judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. This definition refers to the mandatory presumption and not to the permissive presumption. In its simplest form a presumption is merely the assumption of the truth of a fact,—either without any premises being - established, as in the presumption of innocence and sanity, or without complete premises, as in the presumption of theft from the possession of stolen goods,. Certain presumptions arise in regard to some documents produced as evidence in Court. These presumptions are dealt with in sections 79 to 90. Some of these presumptions are obligatory, in the sense that the Court is bound to raise them, e.g., the presumptions mentioned in sections 79 to 85, and section 89; others are merely permissive in the sense that the Court may or may not raise them, e.g., the presumptions mentioned in sections 86 to 88 and 90. In case of obligatory presumptions the Court is bound to take the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it, and hence in such cases the Court shall presume a certain fact in regard to a document. In case of permissive presumptions the Court may consider the facts as proved until the contrary is shown and the Court may presume a certain fact in regard to a document. In addition to the presumptions specifically mentioned in this set of sections other presumptions in regard to certain documents might arise under section 114 which is a residuary section dealing with permissive presumptions. The presumptions mentioned in sections 79 to 90 are not conclusive but rebuttable, while those in sections 41, 112, 113 are irrebuttable as they afford a conclusive proof. Though the Court may, in some cases, presume certain facts about certain documents, evidence may be given by the party against whom the presumption operates, that the facts presumed did not or do not in fact exist. These presumptions are founded upon and are deductions from the principle embodied in the maxim, omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta, i.e., the presumption that the document itself is genuine, of course, includes the presumption that the signature and the seal, where the seal is used, are genuine.