Burden of Proof under Indian Evidence Act
The term “Burden of Proof” originated from the Latin word “Onus Probandi”. In simple language, it means the obligation to prove a fact. In Law, it means the burden of establishing a case and providing evidence for verifying it.
Definition (S.101)
In simpler words, when someone wants any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of the fact which he claims to be, then he must prove that those facts exist.
Example: Mahesh wants a court to give judgement that Meghan shall be punished for the crime which Mahesh says Meghan has committed. Mahesh has to prove that Meghan has committed that crime.
The burden of proving a fact lies upon the person who claims it [1].
ON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF LIES
The burden of proof in a lawsuit or legal proceeding lies on the party which will fail if no evidence is given at all on either side [2].
Example: Mayank sues Lela for a Mansion, of which Lela is in the possession and which Mayank claims that it was left to him by the will of Jagannath, Lela’s Father. If no evidence is given by either side then, Lela would be entitled to retain her position. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Mayank.
The test to ascertain on whom the burden of proof is on is as follows.
- Which party would succeed if no evidence is given from either of the sides?
- What would be the effect of striking out the record of the allegation to be proved.
The burden of proof lies on that party which will lose the case if either of the above steps is pursued[3].
The person who wishes that the court will believe in the existence of the particular fact has to prove that the fact exists unless it is provided by the law that the proof of fact shall lie to any other person[4].
Example: Melan is prosecuting Tithi for theft and Melan wishes that the court will believe that Tithi has committed theft. Melan has to prove Tithi has committed theft.
While Tithi wishes that the court will believe that at the time of theft she was somewhere else. Tithi has to prove she was somewhere else.
The burden of proving the fact is on that person who wishes to give evidence to make evidence acceptable[5].
Example: Aman wishes to prove a dying declaration made by Chanchal, for that he must first prove Chanchal’s death. Here, the burden of proof is on Aman that Chanchal is dead because only when a person is dying and he makes a declaration that declaration is a dying declaration.
The burden of proof that the case of accused comes under exceptions of IPC is on accused. The court presumes the absence of such circumstances[6].
Example:
Sejal is accused of Murder of Mohan. Sejal alleges that she murdered Mohan in private defence.
The burden of proof is on Sejal to prove that she killed Mohan in private defence.
When any fact is within the knowledge of any person, then the burden of proof is on him[7].
Example: Javed is charged with travelling in Bus without a ticket. The burden of proof that he has bought a ticket and has it with him lies on him as he would have known whether he bought a ticket or not.
If a man is shown that he is alive within 30 years, the burden of proof that the person is dead is on the person who claims that he is dead[8].
If the person who claims that the other person is alive who has not been heard of for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him, then the burden of proof is on that person who claims that the other person is alive[9].
If the person claims that the person who is believed to be dead is alive then he has to prove the same[10]
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it[11].
When the question is, whether any person is the owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner[12].
Example: Police found drugs in Mahesh’s room, Mahesh says that the drugs are not his. Mahesh has to prove that he is not the owner of those drugs.
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence[13].
The fact that a child was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man or within the 280 days after the dissolution of marriage, the mother remains unmarried shall be the conclusive proof that the child is the legitimate son of that man unless it can be shown that they have no access to each other[14].
[1] Thatu Mondal v. Surendra Nath Mondal
[2] S.102 of Indian Evidence Act
[3] R. Jayalakshivamma v. Election Tribunal cum Senior Civil Judge, Pungnur
[4] S. 103 of Indian Evidence Act
[5] S. 104 of Indian Evidence Act
[6] S. 105 of Indian Evidence Act
[7] S. 106 of Indian Evidence Act
[8] S. 107 of Indian Evidence Act
[9] S. 108 of Indian Evidence Act
[10] Naga Laxmi v. Thirugnan Sambandam
[11] S.109 of Indian Evidence Act
[12] S.110 of Indian Evidence Act
[13] S.111 of Indian Evidence Act
[14] S.112 of Indian Evidence Act
By : AANCHAL RAWAT
