Adamas university

School of law and justice

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE

ACT

NAME: ARGHA DAS

ROLL: UG/03/BALLB/2021/006
SEMESTER: 5TH (B.A.LL.B.)
 BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

INTRODUCTION:
The term "burden of proof" is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act. However, in simple
terms, it refers to the legal responsibility of the parties involved in a case to establish the facts
that will help the court make a decision in their favor. This duty to prove a fact in a lawsuit is
known as the Burden of Proof. The requirements related to the burden of proof are outlined in
Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, address the burden of proof in a
general sense, while sections 104 to 106 deal with situations where the burden of proof is
placed on a specific individual. The concepts of Onus Probandi and Factum Probans are
fundamental principles related to the burden of proof. Onus Probandi is a general rule that
requires the person making a positive claim to prove it. The party asserting an affirmative
stance carries the onus probandi. It is their responsibility to provide specific facts to
strengthen their case.

CLASSIFICATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF:

In Indian legal practice, the fundamental principle dictates that the burden of proof lies with
the individual who makes a claim or asserts a fact, unless a legal exception has been
established. This principle encompasses three distinct meanings:
1. Persuasive Burden: This refers to the legal and procedural obligation of presenting and
supporting a case. It entails the responsibility placed on a party to establish the elements of
their argument within the framework of the law and pleadings.
2. Evidential Burden: In this context, it involves the duty of providing concrete evidence to
substantiate specific factual claims. Those who make assertions must produce evidence to
support the facts they are claiming.
3. Admissibility of Evidence: The burden of proof also extends to the admissibility of
evidence in court. This means that the party introducing evidence must ensure that it meets
the criteria for admissibility according to legal standards and rules of evidence.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES:

In a civil proceeding, there are two essential components: the factual details of the case and
the legal foundation. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who initiates the civil suit, to
present compelling evidence that establishes the existence or truth of the facts. Even if the
defendant does not offer a defense, if the plaintiff fails to provide convincing evidence, the
defendant will prevail. As a result, defendants often concentrate on undermining the plaintiff's
case rather than presenting a positive defense.
In criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental
principle. Therefore, the prosecution bears the primary responsibility of proving the guilt of
the accused. However, if the accused raises a defense or claims an exception, the burden of
proof shifts to them to substantiate their assertion. The prosecution is then obligated to
demonstrate the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This places a significant burden on the
prosecution and provides an advantage to the defendant.

BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes the “burden of proof.” It requires that
anyone asserting a legal right or liability based on specific facts must prove those facts,
thereby assigning the burden of proof to the person making the claim.
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the person who would
lose in a suit or proceeding if no evidence were presented on either side.
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act emphasizes that the burden of proof regarding a
specific fact rests on the person wishing the court to believe in its existence unless otherwise
specified by law.
Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the burden of proving any fact necessary to
make other evidence admissible lies on the person wishing to present that evidence.
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proving that the accused’s case
falls within exceptions on the accused. It is with a presumption of absence of such
circumstances by the court.

LANDMARK CASES ON BURDEN OF PROOF:

In the matter of V. Kalyanaswamy vs. L. Bakthavatsalam, the Supreme Court provided
clarification regarding the burden of proof and dispelling suspicions when it comes to a will.
It was established that the person presenting the will holds the responsibility to prove its
validity and address any doubts. However, if the will is alleged to be a product of coercion,
undue influence, or fraud, it becomes the duty of the opposing party to substantiate these
claims.
In the matter of M.S. Reddy vs. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore, it was determined
that the prosecution bears the primary responsibility of proving the case. Imposing this
burden on the defendant is unfair. It is crucial for the prosecution to build its case based on its
own evidence. Allowing defendants to present their evidence prior to the prosecution could
potentially provide an advantage to the prosecution, enabling them to employ tactics that may
undermine the case.
In the case of Savithri vs. Karthyayani Amma, which revolves around a disputed will believed
to have been signed under duress, the court has mandated that both parties are required to
substantiate their claims. Consequently, the burden of proof lies on the party making the
accusation of coercion, necessitating the presentation of compelling evidence to validate their
assertion.
In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others,
electronic evidence was introduced as part of the legal proceedings. The court made a
significant determination in this case. Specifically, it ruled that the party presenting electronic
evidence is responsible for establishing its authenticity and accuracy.
In simpler terms, if you bring electronic evidence into a legal case, you must prove that it is
real and trustworthy. This burden of proof falls on the party that introduced the electronic
document.
In Mahboob Sab vs. Union of India, a person fell from a moving train and a lawsuit ensued.
The court determined that the burden of proof rested on the party making a specific claim. In
this instance, the defendants needed to prove that the person didn’t have a valid ticket as they
had asserted.

CONCLUTION:
The burden of proof is defined by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and differs between civil
and criminal cases. In most cases, the party seeking relief or judgment from the court is
responsible for providing evidence, unless the law states otherwise. The presumption of
innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle, and the plaintiff must prove the guilt
of the accused.