The article written by Ms Alka Bano is a legal practitioner in the Central Bar Association of Varanasi. I had completed my graduation in B.COM LL.B from Mahatma Gandhi Kasi Vidyapith and LL.M from National Law University, Jodhpur.

INTRODUCTION 

Burden of proof means any facts in issue or relevant fact that has legal requirement which determines the viability of a claim of the parties in relation to the suit. It is based on facts rather than conjecture. 

It is stand on three grounds that determine the amount of evidence required are:

1. Preponderance of the evidence
2. Clear and Convincing
3. Beyond the reasonable doubt

MEANING OF BURDEN OF PROOF

Burden of proof has two different meaning are:

1. Burden of Proof as a matter of law and pleading that is the burden of proving all the facts or establishing one’s case. The burden rests upon the same party, whether plaintiff or defendant who substantially assets the affirmative of the issue. It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the statement of pleading and is settled as a question of law remaining unchanged under any circumstances under section 101 of Indian evidence Act.

1. Burden of Proof as a matter of adducing evidence either at the beginning or at any particular stage of the case. It is always unstable and may shift constantly throughout the trial under section 102 and 103 Indian Evidence Act.It lies at first on the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence at all was given on either side.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL LAW

The standard of burden of proof of civil nature and general exception of Indian penal code determine evidence on the basis of Preponderance of probability.The burden of proof to prove facts is on the plaintiff in civil cases and on Accused in criminal cases under section 76 to 106 that is a general exception of Indian penal code.

In some civil disputes, such as those involving fraud, contract breaches, or issues relating to intellectual property, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is the accepted legal level of proof. 

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW

General rule in  Criminal laws says that the burden of proof lies on prosecution only to prove beyond reasonable grounds.It is unfair for the accused to bear the burden, and it is important that prosecutors base their cases on their own findings. When the Accused puts the evidence first, it gives the prosecution an unfair advantage and only gives the prosecution the opportunity to poke holes in its strategy held in the matter of M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police,(1993).

The “beyond a reasonable doubt” level, which is employed in criminal trials, is lower than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used in most civil cases.

The burden of proof in case of the criminal justice system is that the accuser will benefit from any reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Every party has to establish facts which go in his favour or against the opposition. The law certainly does not anticipate the kind of doubt that would result from a poor or excessively changeable, careless, impatient, drowsy, or confused mind.

In the matter of the Mahboob Sab  A person fell from a moving train in this instance and was declared dead. The defendants in a lawsuit claimed that because the plaintiff lacked a ticket, he was not a genuine passenger. The defendants had to show that the person was travelling without a ticket, according to the court’s ruling that the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the existence of such a fact. 

In the  case of M.S. Reddy Vs State Inspector of Police court held that the preliminary ruling was that the burden of proof rests on the defendant. It is not fair for the defendant to bear the burden of proof and it is essential for the defendant to prove their case based on their own facts. It gives the prosecution an unfair advantage if the defendants put their evidence first. This will only give the prosecution the opportunity to point fingers and use tactics to get around things.

The evidence in this case was made available electronically. Regarding the validity of the same, there was some debate. In the current case, the court decided that the party providing the electronic evidence had the burden of proving that it was accurate and authentic. The person who bears the burden of proof in connection with the electronic evidence must also take care of the electronic document that has been submitted in order to demonstrate the fact for which it was brought forth.

PRESUMPTION 

Presumption are inferences made by the court regarding the existence of particular facts. If certain facts are assumed to exist, the party in whose favour they are assumed need not provide evidence to support it. This is an exception to the general rule that the party making a claim must bear the initial burden of proof, but presumption eliminates this requirement.

Presumption can be categorised as presumption of fact, presumption of law, and mixed presumption. There are also presumptions related to documentary evidence. As per Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a certified copy of an original document is presented before the court, it is assumed that the copy is genuine. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence  Act states that the court shall assume that a power of attorney executed before it is done so by an authorised person.

There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable and irrebuttable. A rebuttable presumption may be refuted by a party. With proof demonstrating the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution can refute the presumption of innocence. An irrebuttable presumption is one that cannot be refuted. It is a given that children under the age of seven cannot be criminally liable to any offences in Indian penal laws. Therefore, underage children in India cannot be charged with a crime (although they may be the subject of a juvenile adjudication hearing).

CONCLUSION

It is clear that the Evidence Act 1872 covers the concept of the burden of proof extensively and is a well-written law. However, recent developments in electronic evidence and the burden of proof call for a clearer understanding, particularly with respect to court interpretation. 

It depends upon the wishes of the court to believe in its existence unless it is proved by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person whose case falls under general exception.

REFERENCES

1. 1. Professionals’sThe Indian Evidence Act,(1 of 1872) [Bare Act],(2023).  
   2. M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore, 1993 Cr LJ 558 AP.

• Mahboob Sab v. Union of India  (AIR 2011 Kar 8).

• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. (MANU/SC/0521/2020).