Introduction

Courts use presumptions1 to form conclusions about the existence of particular facts. It is not
necessary for the party who is considered to be in the right to rely on presumptive facts to bear
the burden of evidence. However, presumptions are a type of an exceptions to the general rules,
which states to the party that claims to have discovered a given truth has the initial burden of
evidence.

To put it another way, presumptions are inferences made the validity or an untruth of the thing
by applying a simple process of likely to be reasoning to what should be taken for granted. It is
argued that a presumption operates when certain facts are presumed to exist even when if there is
no any complete evidence or proof of their existence. Presumption which is the rule that if only
one fact which is known as the main fact is proven, then another known as the supposed fact is
accepted as proven if there is no counter proof of the same. " Certain facts are routinely regarded
the same way regardless of whether or not they serve as verification of another fact. Where It is
an the inference which is drawn from the known and proven facts. Unless it is proven otherwise,
judges and juries utilise the law of presumption to deduce a conclusion from a fact or piece of
evidence.

As a general rule, if one fact or set of facts in a case or circumstance is taken as prima facie
evidence, and if that evidence supports the other facts relating to that fact, the facts can be taken
as proven until contradicted. "Section 114"2 of the 'Indian Evidence Act' (IEA) deals directly by
the all concepts which the court “may presume” that by the existence of the fact'.

1
Arora, H. (2020, April 8). Presumption under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. SSRN. Retrieved
August 12, 2022, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3530459
2
Author (2022, January 20). Presumption under the indian evidence act 1872. The Law Communicants.
Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://thelawcommunicants.com/presumption-under-the-indian-
evidence-act-1872/
 Kinds Of Presumption

Presumption

Presumption Presumption
of law of facts

Irrebuttable
Rebuttable (Conclusive
Proof)

May Presume Shall Presume

"Rebuttable Presumption"

Presumptions that can be rebutted are known as Rebuttable Presumptions3 since they are
presumptions that can be rebutted. Despite the fact that it is difficult to gauge the magnitude of
such these presumptions, their truthfulness may only be assumed until proven otherwise. For an
ex. if a man or anybody is in possessions of stolen property, it is evident that they are either a
“thief” or a “receiver”. That's a classic illustration of rebuttable presumptions.

Irrebuttable Presumption

Ir-rebuttable It's impossible to disprove these assumptions with any more evidence or argument.
Because of this, the hypothesis described falls under the umbrella or roof of a conclusive
hypothesis or presumption, and the falsity of which cannot be proven. Children less than seven
years old are regarded to be incompetent criminals.

Section, 4

May presume

Any/certain/few facts may be presumed by the court at its discretion, and the court may either
recognises it as proved or a request corroborative proof to affirm or reconfirm the presumption it
has made. As long as they are not disapproved, the facts in question can be taken as proven under
Section 4, of the (IEA), "Indian Evidence Act". Under Section 4 of this act, the term 'May
Presume'4 refers to presumptions that can be rebutted..

Shall presume
3
Law Corner. (2021, January 19). Difference between rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. Law
Corner. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://lawcorner.in/difference-between-rebuttable-and-
irrebuttable-presumptions/
4
Codingest. (n.d.). What is meant by 'may presume', 'shall presume' and 'conclusive proof'?
Sonisvision. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/post/what-is-
meant-by-may-presume-shall-presume-and-conclusive-proof
Rather of implying a strong claim or desire to establish any fact, "must presume guess" does just
that. "Shall Presume," as defined in Section 4, of (IEA) the Indian Evidence Act, means "shall
presume" facts or groupings of facts unless they are disproven by the opposing party. The court
doesn't have any other discretionary power in where the course of the presumption. A "Shall
Presume" is also called as a "Presumption of Law" under Indian Evidence Act Section 4.

Conclusive presumption

It is not merely logical to presume that a court can assume strong conclusions/proofs, but these
presumptions are intended to benefit society as a whole, rather than just the individual.Even if a
presumption is challenged with probative evidence, the law has unlimited power and will not
admit any proof contradicting the presumption, in which means that the assumption will be
upheld. As the strongest presumption, the irrefutable type of presumptions, or Conclusive
Presumption, is governed by Evidence Act sections 41, 112, and 113, as well as Indian Penal
Code section 82.

Types Of Presumption

Presumptions5 which can be classified into a certain types:

● “Presumptions of fact”
● “Presumptions of law”
● “Mixed Presumptions”

Presumption Of Facts

5
Unknown. (n.d.). Classification of presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act 1872. SRD Law
Notes. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/03/classification-of-
presumptions-under.html?m=1
Presumption of Facts6- To make a presumption of fact, a person must draw conclusions about
what has happened based on what they have seen and heard. This is referred to as a material or
natural presumption. Presumptions are examples of circumstantial evidence because they are
seen to be beneficial Due to the judicial system's incapacity to prove every truth, it will be more
difficult to apprehend criminals and those who are in dispute with the law.

Section 113A:
113-A, the presumption that a married lady or women aided and abetted her own suicide:
Within seven (7) years after the date of the marriage, the court may presume that given the other
facts of the case, that a suicide committed by the reason of her own wife's husband means
husband or a relative of her husband was abetted her by cruelty or any other reason.
An abetment of suicide case "may presume," taking into account all other facts of the case, if a
court can find that the defendant aided the victim commit suicide, based on the evidence. Section
113-A's7 use of 'may presume' indicates a Section 4 presumption of fact. There are presumptions
of this type that represent "natural inferences which the 'common flow of natural events,' human
action, and public and private business suggest to us." The Court has the power to make a
presumption or not, based on the facts of the situation.
The accused in Nilakantha Pati v State of Orissa8 married the victim in April 1982 and
received a dowry as a result. However, the accused later chose to purchase a property and
requested Rs 70,00 from the victim's parents. She was tortured and died in 1986 after she was
unable to acquire the cash. The court concluded that the presumption was rebuttable since the
accused backed his assertions with sound reasoning and logic. The accused was acquitted under
Section 113A because his arguments were relevant enough. According to the High Court, the
presumption formed in this instance is rebuttable, and such a presumption can be raised if the
facts of the case fit the substance or interpretation of the legislative provisions. And in this case,
the accused refuted all of the court's presumptions, therefore he was released.

The presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman during seven years of marriage is
covered by Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

6
Ltd, A. A. (2022, July 27). Presumptions as to indian evidence act documents. Law Teacher.
Retrieved August 12, 2022, from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-
act-documents-contract-law-essay.php
7
Indian Evidence Act Section 113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women. Latest
Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from
https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/indian-evidence-act-section-113a-presumption-
as-to-abatement-of-suicide-by-a-married-women
8
Nilakantha Pati v state of orissa on 24 June 1994 - judgement - lawyerservices. The Tech
Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nilakantha-Pati-
Versus-State-of-Orissa-1994-06-24
Presumption Of Law

Inferences and ideas established or inferred by the law are known as presumptions. Rebuttable
type of presumptions of law, and the irrebuttable presumptions of law can be further subdivided.

Dowry's death is presumed in the same way as presumption of law under Section 113 B9, A
presumption in law,'shall presume', is used under the Section (113B) of the (IEA) Evidence Act
to imply that the Court must draw the conclusion and that there is no other option. However, it
can be rebutted, though it is not easily repulsed. Refuting or repelling it necessitates evidence
that is solid, distinct, convincing, and definitive.

Courts are prohibited from presenting evidence to contradict a claim that has been proclaimed
conclusive proof under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act if one fact has been demonstrated or
disprove and there is no evidence to disprove it. in an attempt where we can disprove it. As a
result, in Section 304-B cases, the burden of convincing was divided among the parties.
Until the accused provides very strong, cogent, and positive proof in rebuttal that the person has
not committed dowry death, the Court must accept the fact that a lady was subjected to cruelty in
connection with the demand for dowry as proved.

In, Shantiv. State of Haryana10, Parents of the bride were prevented from entering the house by
her husband's in-laws and grumbled about the lack of dowry when they met her for the first time.
Shortly after the incident, she was found dead. Due to the Supreme Court's approval of the
presumption established under Section 113B, one of the in-laws was sentenced to one year in jail
for causing dowry death.

“Sections 86-88”, “Section 90”, “Section 113A”, and “Section 113 B” of the (IEA) Indian
Evidence Act explicitly refer to Natural Presumptions. Presumptions under this Act include
Sections 113A and 113B, which deal with hard-core crimes such as Presumption as to abatement
of suicidal thoughts, while Sections 86 and 87 discuss legal documents from another country,
certified copies, Among the topics covered in Sections 87 and 88 are presumptions relating to
books, maps, and charts, while Section 88 addresses presumptions relating to telegraph
communications and Section 90 addresses presumptions relating to papers older than thirty
9
Section details. India Code. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?
actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700§ionId=38924§ionno=113B&ordern
o=130
10
Admin, & Admin. (2018, May 12). Shanti v. state of Haryana. CrLRR. Retrieved August 12, 2022,
from http://crlreview.in/shanti-v-state-of-haryana/
years. Section 113A deals with the presumption that married women are less or likely to commit
suicide where court can presume.

Conclusion

In Tukaram v State of Maharashtra11 , On the basis of the circumstances of “Mathura Rape

Case”, where the Court explained that the basic need and need of the such “presumptions” while
adjudicating the case. Another aspect of Presumptions that the Court noted is that they have a
wider scope than just helping an individual in a swift or easy trial. Presumptions which can be
help to the Indian judiciary deliver justice quickly and thoroughly to society. Section, 90, of
(IEA) the Evidence Act deals specifically with permissive or the presumption, which is
according to the Stephen, who believes presumption which is mandatory, not permissive. Courts
have discretion to believe or not believe permissive presumption.

11
Sharma, I. (2021, September 2). Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Case Summary (1979
SC). Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation. Retrieved August
15, 2022, from https://lawplanet.in/tukaram-vs-state-of-maharashtra-case-summary/
#:~:text=The%20conclusion%20drawn%20was%20that,intercourse%E2%80%9D%20and
%20%E2%80%9Crape%E2%80%9D.

Ltd, A. A. (2022, July 27). Presumptions as to indian evidence act documents. Law Teacher.
Retrieved August 12, 2022, from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-
act-documents-contract-law-essay.php
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sharma, I. (2021, September 2). Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Case Summary (1979 SC).
Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation. Retrieved August 15,
2022, from https://lawplanet.in/tukaram-vs-state-of-maharashtra-case-summary/#:~:text=The
%20conclusion%20drawn%20was%20that,intercourse%E2%80%9D%20and
%20%E2%80%9Crape%E2%80%9D

Nilakantha Pati v state of orissa on 24 June 1994 - judgement - lawyerservices. The Tech
Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nilakantha-Pati-
Versus-State-of-Orissa-1994-06-24

India, legal S. (n.d.). Presumptions relating to matrimonial offences. Legal Service India.
Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pre_mat.htm

-, D. R., By, -, Rai, D., & here, P. enter your name. (2022, January 28). Presumptions in the
indian evidence act. iPleaders. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from
https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/

Admin, & Admin. (2018, May 12). Shanti v. state of Haryana. CrLRR. Retrieved August 12,
2022, from http://crlreview.in/shanti-v-state-of-haryana/