Proved, not proved and disproved

(1) Proved-According to Section 3, a fact is said to

be proved when after considering the matters before
it, the court either—
(a) believes it to exist, or
(b) considers its existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that it does exist.
All that a person has to do is to adduce such
evidence so that the mind of the tribunal is satisfied
regarding the facts of a case. The true question,
therefore, in trials is not whether the testimony is true
or false, but whether there is a sufficient probability of
its truth.

The extent to which a particular evidence aids in

deciding facts is called probative force. Therefore, it
is essential that the probative force should be
sufficient to induce a court: firstly, to believe in the
existence of the fact and secondly, to consider its
existence so probable that a prudent man may act
upon the supposition that it exists.
Hence on the question of standard of proof there is
only one rule of evidence applicable both to civil and
criminal cases. The only test being, would a prudent
man after considering the matters before him deem
the fact-in-issue proved or disproved? (Pershady v.
State, AIR 1955 All 443).

Matters before it.-This phrase used in the section

does not say the evidence before it, rather it says the
matter before it. Thus this expression also includes
materials which do not fall in the domain of evidence
within the definition of evidence as given in Section 3.
For example, Commissioner's report, results of local
inquiry, confession etc.

In State of M.P v. Dharkole, 2005 SCC (Cri. 225 it

was held that the standard of proof in criminal cases
is merely proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It is never required to be absolute. So far as
probability of commission and non commission of a
crime is concerned it could not be expressed with
mathematical accuracy as it incorporates a series of
subjective elements and ultimately depends on
common sense.

The burden of proof in criminal trials never shifts. It is

settled principle of criminal Jurisprudence that the
more serious the offence the strict decree of proof,
since a higher degree of assurance is expected to
convict the accused. (Movasam Singh Roy v. State of
W.B., (2003) 12 SCC 375).
Disproved.—A fact is said to be disproved when
after considering the matter before it, the court either
:
(1) believes that it does not exist, or
(2) considers its non-existence so probable that a
prudent man ought under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
does not exist.
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.-This maxim means if
a thing is false in respect of one it must be taken to
be false in respect of all.
Sometimes it is argued that if a part of the evidence
given by a witness has been disbelieved, the whole
of it should be disbelieved as rule of law. This maxim
does not occupy the status of law in India. It is merely
a rule of caution.

The definition of 'proved' as given above is the

embodiment of a sound rule of common sense. It
describes that degree of certainty must be arrived at
before a fact can be said to be proved.

"Disproved" is converse of 'proved'. When both the

parties or even one party have or has given evidence
to prove a fact but the court considers that the fact is
not established, the fact is said to be disproved.
A matter or fact is said to be disproved when the
court has examined it and has rejected its existence.
In case the court has not applied its mind the fact
cannot be said to have been disproved.

(iii) Not Proved.—A fact is said to be not proved

when-
(1) it is neither proved,
(2) nor disproved.
As seen above the definition of the word 'disproved'
is a converse of the definition of the word 'proved'.
However the expression 'not proved' indicates a state
of mind in between the above two, that is, when one
cannot say whether a fact is proved or disproved. It
negatives both proof and disproof.

In every case one wants to prove his case and the

other wants to disprove it. A court of law has to
decide the controversy. In judicial proceedings a
court has to fix its judgment on materials placed
before it by the parties. Generally a court has nothing
before it with the help of which it can be dead sure of
the reality. The court has to depend on probability of
the matter, In a proceeding one party alleges one
thing and the other tries to prove it to be false, That is
one wants to prove a thing and the other wants to
disprove it. When a fact has not been proved by the
party on whom the burden lies, that is to say, when
the said party has given no evidence or has given
evidence which is not sufficient to establish the fact.
The fact is said to be not proved. In case of disproved
the courts reject the evidence whereas in case of not
proved, there is non production of evidence.