Conclusion
How is conclusion indifferent from presumption?
Burden of Proof
What is the burden of proof and how is it relevant over presumptions?
Degree of Assistance
What is degree of assistance? What is its bearing from presumption to presumption?
Rebuttable presumptions of law
Irrebuttable presumptions of law
Presumptions of fact
The term ‘presumption’ is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. “Presumption” means,
taking a fact as true without examination or proof. Presumption is an interference drawn by a
judicial officer positively or negatively about a fact. Presumption is a matter of opinion. It is a
rule of law that attaches definite probative value to specific facts or directs that a particular
inference as to existence of one fact not actually known shall be drawn from a fact which is
known and proved. It is an assumption of fact and furnishes prima facie evidence of the matter to
which it related and relives, until it is rebutted. It means, it holds the field in the absence of
evidence but when facts appear resumptions goes back.
Ss. 79 – 90, deals with presumption as to the genuineness of a certain kind of documents. S.
111A of the Act, deal with presumptions as to certain offences. S. 112 deals with presumptions
as to birth of a child during marriage S. 113A deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide
by a married women. S. 113B of the Act, deal with presumption as to dowry death. Lastly, S.
114 deals with presumptions as to the existence of certain facts.
Presumptions are of two kinds. Firstly, presumption of facts from Ss. 86 – 89 of the Act, and
Secondly, presumption of law. Presumption of law is further divided into categories
presumption juria (rebuttable presumption) and juris de juris (Presumptions of law conclusive;
(Irrebuttable presumption)).
Ss. 79 – 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contemplates various presumptions as to
documents. [A] Presumption as to telegraphic messages (S. 88), the court may presume that a
message, forwarded from a telegraph office to any person, corresponds with a message given for
transmission to the office from which it has been sent. But the Court shall not make any
presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission. [B]
Presumption in respect of documents not produced (S. 89), the court shall presume that every
document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and
executed in the manner required by law. However the above presumption is not a conclusive one
but can be rebutted by contrary evidence. Further, the presumption here is confined to due
attestation, stamp and execution etc., but does not extend to the contents of the documents, which
has to be proved by secondary evidence, if allowed under S. 65. But there is a genera
presumption under S. 114, illustration (g), that when a party does not produce a document in his
possession, it would, if produced, be unfavorable to him. It is doubtful whether the presumption
in S. 89 may be raised when the document is in the possession of a stranger who does not
produce it though summoned to do so. [C] Presumption in respect of ancient documents (S. 90),
ancient documents are documents which are 30 years or more old. Regarding them S. 90
contemplates that, where any document, [i] purporting or proved to be 30 years old, [ii] is
produced from any custody which the court considers proper. [iii] The court may presume that
the signature and every other part of such document which purports t be in the handwriting, and
[iv] in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the
persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Reasons for the rule is otherwise expressed by the words: “documents 30 years old or proved
themselves”. The reason for the special rule is the great difficulty and indeed, in many cases,
impossibility, of proving the handwriting, execution and attestation of documents in the ordinary
way after the lapse of many years, as also the presumption that the attesting witness, if any, are
dead. The rule is thus founded on necessity and convenience. There are limitation following the
rule of presumption, [a] It is only a permissive presumption, giving ample discretion to
individual judges, to apply it only in proper cases, [b] there is no presumption under S. 9, that the
contents of the documents are true or that it has been acted upon. That must be proved like any
other fact. The presumption is confined to handwriting, due execution and due attestation.
Accordingly, conditions for applicability of presumption as per S. 90 would be that [1] it must be
proved to be 30 years old. Thus where a document neither purports nor is provided to be 30 years
old, example; where a document is undated, there is no presumption of genuineness under S. 90.
Thirty years have to be counted from the date of the document. Likewise, [2] the document must
have been produced from proper custody. Proper custody of a document means its deposit with a
person and in a place where, if authentic, it might naturally and reasonably be expected to be
found.
