INTRODUCTION

Every case irrespective of the nature, starts with the occurrence of of certain events, and the
elaboration of those events are called facts and there are some legal aspects to it which is to be
decided by the court and there comes the role of proving them. For that purpose every judicial
proceeding has for its purpose to ascertain some rights or liability. These rights and liabilities have
direct nexus with the facts of the case which is mandatory to be proved in court with a purpose to
satisfy the court. Sections 101-111 of the Evidence Act, deal with the provisions regarding to “who
is to lead evidence and prove the case”. These rules are called as “Burden of Proof.” Burden of
Proof is nothing but legal burden. It simply means that the party have an obligation to prove the fact
and it must be done based on which court will give its decision which can either go in his favour or
in favour of his opponent. This burden of proving is called burden of proof i.e. (onus probandi) if in
case, no evidence is being presented by the party on whom the burden is located then in that case,
the issue will be found against him.

Generally, in most of the cases the burden of proof lies on the affected party i.e. the person who
have instituted the case with the view that best evidence must be produced before the court. This
does not mean that the other party will always be excused from this liability of burden of proof. In
cases like rape, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove that he has not done it. However the
burden of proof has been divided in two parts i.e. burden of proof as a matter of law and
pleading which says that a burden of proving all the facts or establishing one’s case. It is fixed at
the beginning of the trial by the statements of pleadings and it is settled as a question of law,
remaining unchanged under whatever circumstances. The other is burden of proof as a matter of
adducing evidence which says that at the beginning or at any stage as such it is always unstable
and may shift constantly during the trail.

So now the question is that how can the burden of proof be determined in any case. Well, section
102 of Indian Evidence Act has a direct nexus with the answer to this question which specifically
talks about “on whom the burden of proof lies” which reads as “The burden of proof in a suit or in a
prosecution lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.”

1
RESEARCH/STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act presents several challenges and issues that
require attention and analysis. Here are some key problem areas related to the 1burden of proof
under the Indian Evidence Act:

1. Shifting and allocation of burden: The Indian Evidence Act provides guidelines for the shifting
and allocation of the burden of proof. However, there can be ambiguity in certain situations, leading
to disputes and uncertainty about which party bears the burden. The lack of clarity can impact the
fairness and efficiency of legal proceedings.
2. Standard of proof: The Indian Evidence Act does not explicitly define the standard of proof
required in different types of cases. This lack of clarity can result in inconsistent interpretations and
application of the standard of proof, causing confusion for litigants and affecting the reliability of
outcomes.
3. Presumption and burden of rebuttal: 2The Indian Evidence Act includes provisions for legal
presumptions, where the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party to rebut the presumption.
However, there can be challenges in determining the threshold for rebuttal and the evidentiary
burden required to overcome the presumption. This can lead to difficulties for parties in presenting
their case effectively.
4. Evidentiary rules and admissibility: The Indian Evidence Act contains rules regarding the
admissibility of evidence. However, there may be situations where the Act does not explicitly
address the admissibility of certain types of evidence, such as digital or scientific evidence. This can
result in uncertainty and challenges in determining the admissibility of such evidence, impacting the
burden of proof.
5. Inconsistency in judicial decisions: The application of the burden of proof can vary across
different courts and judges. This inconsistency in judicial decisions can create uncertainty and
undermine the predictability and fairness of the burden of proof. Harmonizing interpretations and
ensuring consistency in the application of the law is crucial for a just legal system.

1Amrendra Kumar, “Burden of Proof”, available at https://www.scribd.com/document/265033648/Burden-of-proof-

docx visited at November 9, 2020 at 9:30 AM

2.Shantanu Shatrak, Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, available on

https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/section-105-of-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/120492

2
Addressing these problem areas requires a careful examination of the Indian Evidence Act, judicial
interpretations, and potential reforms. Ensuring clarity in the allocation and shifting of the burden of
proof, defining the standard of proof, and addressing evidentiary rules and admissibility in the
context of evolving technology are essential for promoting fairness, efficiency, and access to justice
under the Indian Evidence Act.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The purpose of studying the burden of proof can be summarized point-wise as follows:

1. Understanding legal responsibilities: The study aims to comprehend the obligations of parties
involved in a legal proceeding to present evidence and prove certain facts or elements.
2.Ensuring fairness: By examining the burden of proof, the study seeks to ensure fairness and
procedural justice in legal proceedings by allocating the evidentiary responsibilities equitably.
3.Guiding legal strategy: Understanding the burden of proof helps legal professionals develop
effective strategies to meet the evidentiary requirements, anticipate challenges, and present
persuasive arguments.
4.Promoting consistency: The study aims to identify patterns, principles, and standards related to
the burden of proof to foster consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.
5.Identifying areas for reform: Through research and analysis, the study can identify areas of
ambiguity, inconsistency, or inefficiency in burden of proof rules, leading to recommendations for
legal reforms and improvements.
In summary, the purpose of studying the burden of proof is to understand legal responsibilities,
ensure fairness, guide legal strategy, promote consistency, and identify opportunities for legal
reform.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of a study on the burden of proof can be outlined point-wise as follows:

1. Legal frameworks: The study includes an examination of relevant legal frameworks, such as
evidence acts, statutes, and regulations, to understand the allocation, shifting, and standards of
proof.

3
2. Comparative analysis: Comparative studies analyze burden of proof principles and practices
across different jurisdictions, identifying variations and similarities to highlight best practices and
potential areas for improvement.
3. Case law analysis: The study involves analyzing relevant case law to understand judicial
interpretations and applications of the burden of proof, identifying trends, precedents, and evolving
perspectives.
4. Evidentiary rules: The scope encompasses an analysis of evidentiary rules and principles, such as
rules regarding admissibility, hearsay, expert testimony, and the impact of technological
advancements on evidence presentation.
5. Impact of technology: The study explores the impact of technology on the burden of proof,
including issues related to digital evidence, electronic records, and challenges arising from
technological advancements.
6. Judicial discretion: The study assesses the role of judicial discretion in evaluating evidence,
examining factors that influence decision-making and its impact on the burden of proof.
7. Access to justice: The scope includes examining the impact of the burden of proof on access to
justice, particularly for marginalized individuals or groups, to identify challenges and propose
measures to enhance fairness and inclusivity.

In summary, the scope of a study on the burden of proof encompasses legal frameworks,
comparative analysis, case law, evidentiary rules, technology's impact, judicial discretion, access to
justice, and recommendations for reform.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Here is a brief literature review on the burden of proof:

1. 3Cross, R., & Tiller, M. (2015) The Burden and Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation: An
International Comparison. This article compares the burden and standard of proof in civil litigation
across jurisdictions.
2. 4Roberts, J. S. (2013). The Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation: A Comparative Study. This book
provides a comprehensive comparative study of the burden of proof in civil litigation.

3Cross, R., & Tiller, M. (2015)

4Roberts, J. S. (2013).

4
3. Sato, R. (2018). The Shifting Burden of Proof in Comparative Perspective. This article analyzes
the shifting burden of proof in both criminal and civil cases across different legal systems.
4. Redmayne, M. (2006). The Burden of Proof and the Psychology of Juror Decision Making. This
article explores the psychological aspects of the burden of proof and its impact on juror decision-
making.
5. 5Bagaric, M., & Sandhu, P. (2019). The Relevance of Presumptions and Burdens of Proof in the
Criminal Process. This article examines the role of presumptions and burdens of proof in the
criminal process.
These sources provide insights into various aspects of the burden of proof, including comparative
analysis, psychological influences, and the interaction with presumptions and burdens in different
legal processes.

RESEARCH/HYPOTHESIS QUESTIONS

Certainly! Here are some research questions on the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act:

1, What is the legal framework regarding the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act? How
is the burden of proof defined and allocated in different types of cases (criminal, civil, etc.)?
2,How do the different standards of proof outlined in the Indian Evidence Act (such as beyond
reasonable doubt, preponderance of probabilities) impact the burden of proof in criminal and civil
cases?
3,What are the presumptions and inferences provided in the Indian Evidence Act? How do these
affect the burden of proof and the allocation of evidentiary responsibilities in various types of
cases?
4, How have the courts in India interpreted and applied the burden of proof provisions under the
Indian Evidence Act? What are the key judicial precedents and case law that shed light on burden
allocation, shifting, and the application of different standards of proof?
5,What are the practical challenges and implications of the burden of proof provisions in the Indian
Evidence Act? How do they impact access to justice, fairness, and the efficiency of legal
proceedings?

5Bagaric, M., & Sandhu, P. (2019)

5
6, Are there any inconsistencies or areas for potential reform in the burden of proof provisions
under the Indian Evidence Act? What suggestions or recommendations can be made to enhance
clarity, consistency, and effectiveness in the allocation and application of the burden of proof?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Having regard to the nature of the subject and in preparing the same, doctrinal method has been
used. It is entirely based on the secondary sources collected from text-books on Evidence Law,
journals, articles, adjudicated cases, and websites etc. The collected sources have been presented in
past form in order to make the study more informative, analytical and useful for the readers. Also in
this study the contemporary adjudicated cases on burden of proof in Evidence Law are elaborately
explained.

6
 CONCLUSION

The burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act is a significant aspect of the legal system in
India. Through a thorough examination of the provisions and relevant case law, it becomes evident
that the burden of proof plays a crucial role in ensuring the fair and effective administration of
justice.

The Indian Evidence Act defines the burden of proof and outlines the standards of proof for
different types of cases. The Act imposes the burden on the party asserting a fact and requires them
to prove it through sufficient evidence. The standard of proof varies depending on the nature of the
case, with criminal cases requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt and civil cases requiring proof
on a preponderance of probabilities.

The burden of proof provisions in the Indian Evidence Act are interpreted and applied by the courts
through the analysis of evidence, evaluation of witnesses, and consideration of legal presumptions.
Case law analysis reveals that the courts have consistently emphasized the importance of upholding
the burden of proof and ensuring that it is discharged satisfactorily to establish the truth of the
disputed facts.

However, challenges and complexities exist in applying the burden of proof provisions. Issues such
as the allocation and shifting of the burden, the impact of evidentiary presumptions, and the role of
technological advancements in evidence presentation pose ongoing challenges for the effective
implementation of the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act.

In conclusion, the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act is a crucial element in the
determination of legal disputes. It ensures that the party making a claim or allegation bears the
responsibility of substantiating it with credible evidence. While the Act provides a framework for
burden allocation and standards of proof, there is room for further analysis and potential reforms to
address emerging challenges and enhance the fairness and efficiency of the burden of proof in the
Indian legal system.

7
 REFERENCES

1, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Evidence Act.
3, Sarkar, P. C., & Sarkar, S. C., Sarkar's Law of Evidence.
4, Modi, V. N., & Malik, M. H., Law of Evidence.
5, Cross, R., & Tiller, M., The Burden and Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation: An International
Comparison.