INTRODUCTION

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), earlier the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is a crucial
piece of legislation that governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts.

One of the key principles enshrined in this act is the concept of the burden of proof, which determines
which party is responsible for proving a particular fact in a legal proceeding.

Chapter VII of BSA states the provisions of the Burden of Proof.

These provisions collectively aim to create a balanced approach to proving facts and establishing legal
presumptions, ensuring that the responsibility for evidence is placed on the party best positioned to
provide it.

The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party in a legal dispute to prove their claims or
assertions.

Under the BSA, the burden of proof is primarily governed by Section 104 to Section 114.

These Sections delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved in a case and establish the standards
for presenting evidence.

The burden of proof is a fundamental concept in the legal system, primarily concerned with the obligation
to prove the allegations or assertions made during a trial. In judicial analysis, the burden of proof is
typically divided into two key components:

Burden of Production (or Burden of Going Forward):

This refers to the obligation of a party to present sufficient evidence to support their claims or defenses. It
involves introducing evidence and making the initial case that the facts alleged are true.

Burden of Persuasion (or Burden of Proof):

This concerns the responsibility of a party to convince the court of the truth of their assertions. It includes
meeting a particular standard of proof, such as "preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases or "beyond
a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.

KEY PROVISION RELATING TO BURDEN OF PROOF

Section 104 of the BSA states that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of any
fact.

This means that if a party claims that a certain fact is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence
supporting that claim.

For example, in a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 105: On whom Burden of Proof Lies

Section 105 clarifies that the burden of proof in civil cases lies on the party who would fail if no further
evidence were presented.

This section emphasizes that the party making the claim must substantiate it with adequate evidence,
while the opposing party may only need to counter the evidence presented.

Section 106: Burden of Proof as to Particular Facts

Section 106 of BSA addresses situations where a party wishes to rely on a particular fact that is not part of
the general burden of proof.

In such cases, the party must prove the existence of that specific fact.

Section 107: Burden of proving Fact to be proved to make Evidence Admissible

Section 107 of BSA states that the burden of proving a fact that is essential to the case lies on the party
who wishes to rely on that fact.

This section reinforces the principle that parties must provide evidence for the facts they intend to use in
their arguments.

Section 108: Burden of proving that Case of Accused comes within Exceptions

Section 108 of BSA states that when someone is accused of an offense, the responsibility lies with the
accused to prove that their actions fall under any general or special exceptions outlined in the law.

The court will assume that such exceptional circumstances do not exist unless proven otherwise.

This means the accused must actively demonstrate why their actions should be considered exempt from
typical legal consequences.

Section 109: Burden of proving Fact especially within Knowledge

Section 109 of BSA states that in legal proceedings, if a specific fact is something that only a particular
person would know intimately, that person bears the burden of proving such a fact.

This principle ensures that individuals with direct, unique knowledge are responsible for substantiating
claims that only they can effectively explain.

Section 110: Burden of proving Death of Person known to have been alive within Thirty years
Section 110 of BSA states regarding questions of life and death, the legal system has specific rules for
establishing proof.

If it can be shown that a person was alive within the past 30 years, anyone claiming that the person is now
dead must provide evidence to support that assertion.

Section 111: Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.

Section 111 states if someone has not been heard from for seven years by people who would typically be
in contact with them (such as family or close friends), the burden shifts to those claiming the person is
still alive to prove their existence.

Section 112: Burden of proof as to Relationship in the cases of Partners, Landlord and Tenant,
Principal and Agent

Section 112 states that the law also addresses presumptions in certain relationship contexts.

When individuals have been demonstrably acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent,
anyone claiming that such a relationship does not exist or has ended must provide proof to support their
claim.

This approach prevents unnecessary disputes by placing the burden of proof on the party challenging an
apparently existing relationship.

Section 113: Burden of Proof as to Ownership

Section 113 states that in matters of ownership, if someone is found in possession of something, they are
presumed to be the owner.

Anyone challenging this ownership must provide evidence to prove that the possessor is not the actual
owner.

This principle protects current possessors and provides a clear standard for establishing ownership.

Section 114: Proof of Good Faith in transactions where one party is in relation of Active Confidence

Section 114 states that in transactions involving parties with unequal power dynamics, particularly where
one party is in a position of active confidence (such as a fiduciary relationship), the burden of proving the
transaction's good faith falls on the party in the more powerful position.

This rule helps protect vulnerable parties from potential exploitation by requiring those with greater
influence to demonstrate the fairness and integrity of their actions.

JUDICIAL ANALYSIS
Judicial analysis on burden of proof can be broken down in several critical areas:

1. Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

The burden may shift to the defense in certain circumstances, such as when the defendant raises an
affirmative defense (e.g., self-defense in a criminal case).

However, the general rule is that the burden of proof never shifts entirely. Instead, the burden of going
forward with evidence may shift based on the nature of the case.

2. Standards of Proof

The standard of proof is the level of certainty required to satisfy the burden. Common standards include:

Beyond a reasonable doubt: This is the highest standard and is required in criminal cases. The prosecution
must prove the defendant's guilt to such a degree that no reasonable doubt remains in the mind of a juror.

Preponderance of the evidence: This standard is used in civil cases and means that the evidence presented
must be more convincing than the evidence presented by the opposing party.

Clear and convincing evidence: This standard is higher than preponderance of the evidence but lower than
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is often used in cases involving issues like fraud, wills, or termination of
parental rights.

3. Presumptions and Inferences

Courts may apply legal presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the opposing party. For example, in
criminal law, a presumption of innocence exists, meaning the defendant does not need to prove their
innocence; instead, the prosecution must prove guilt.

In civil cases, once a party introduces enough evidence to establish a prima facie case (a case that, if
unopposed, would lead to a judgment in their favor), the burden of proof may shift to the other party to
rebut the evidence.

4. Judicial Discretion in Assessing Evidence

Judges play a critical role in determining whether the burden of proof has been met. They assess the
credibility, sufficiency, and weight of the evidence presented. The judge may also instruct the jury on the
burden of proof, explaining the level of proof needed to reach a verdict.

In many instances, judges will decide whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the party with the burden of proof, is sufficient to meet the required standard. The judge is also
responsible for ensuring that the evidence complies with legal rules, such as admissibility, relevance, and
reliability.

5. Burden of Proof in Criminal vs. Civil Cases

In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. This is a fundamental safeguard in protecting the accused, ensuring that individuals are not
wrongfully convicted.
In civil cases, the burden of proof generally lies on the plaintiff, who must establish the facts of the case
by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the standard is less stringent than in criminal cases, as civil
matters typically involve private disputes (e.g., contracts, torts) rather than the state's interest in punishing
criminal behavior.

6. Shifting Burden of Proof: Affirmative Defenses

In certain instances, the defendant in a criminal trial or the respondent in a civil case may raise an
affirmative defense. When this happens, the burden of proof may shift to the defendant to prove that the
defense is applicable.

For example, in a criminal case, if a defendant claims self-defense, they may need to prove that they acted
in self-defense, though the prosecution still retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. Judicial Guidance on Burden of Proof in Practice

Courts frequently address the burden of proof in jury instructions, explaining that the plaintiff or
prosecution has the obligation to prove its case and that the defendant does not have to prove their
innocence.

In appellate cases, courts analyze whether the lower court properly allocated and explained the burden of
proof, and whether the jury was correctly instructed on this matter.

CASE LAWS
1. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)

Facts: The appellant, Nanavati, was charged with the murder of his wife’s lover, Ahuja. He claimed the
killing was in self-defense and that he was provoked by the deceased's actions.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution.
However, once the defendant raises a plausible defense (e.g., self-defense), the burden may shift to the
prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.

Significance: This case illustrates how the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove guilt, and how
the burden may shift depending on the circumstances (e.g., the defendant raising a self-defense claim).

2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)

Facts: Rajesh Gautam was accused of the murder of his wife. His defense was that he had been falsely
implicated and the death was accidental.

Judgment: The Supreme Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies entirely with
the prosecution. The accused does not have to prove their innocence but only raise reasonable doubt. The
prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Significance: This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof in criminal
trials and must establish the guilt of the accused.

3. M. Krishna Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003)

Facts: In this case, the accused was charged with rape and claimed that the act was consensual. The trial
court initially shifted the burden of proof to the accused to show that consent was given.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proving consent in a rape case lies with the
prosecution, not the accused. It held that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
act was non-consensual.

Significance: This case clarified that the burden of proof in cases of sexual offenses lies with the
prosecution, and the accused cannot be forced to prove consent.

4. R v. Ibrahim (1994)

Facts: In this case, the defendant was accused of theft. His defense was that he had been coerced into
committing the crime and acted under duress.

Judgment: The court upheld that once the defense raises the issue of duress, the burden of proof shifts to
the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that duress was not a factor. However, it is not
sufficient for the defense merely to make an assertion; they must provide credible evidence.

Significance: This case reinforced the understanding that once a valid defense is raised, the prosecution
must prove the non-existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954)

Facts: This case dealt with a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where the burden of proving
the injury occurred during the course of employment was disputed.

Judgment: The court emphasized that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the claimant (the plaintiff),
who must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury occurred during the course of
employment.

Significance: This case shows the application of the burden of proof in civil cases, highlighting that the
plaintiff must prove the facts necessary to support their claim.

6. Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988)

Facts: The accused was charged with the murder of his wife, and he claimed that the death occurred by
accident.

Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It was held that the accused does
not have to disprove the charge but may raise a reasonable doubt to challenge the prosecution's case.

Significance: This case reaffirms that in criminal trials, the prosecution has the onus of proving the
accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957)

Facts: The appellant was charged with murder. He argued that he had acted in self-defense and claimed
that he had been falsely implicated.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt
and the accused may raise the issue of self-defense. However, it is the duty of the accused to raise a
defense when challenged by the prosecution's evidence.

Significance: This case underscores the burden of proof on the prosecution and the defendant’s obligation
to introduce a reasonable defense.

BURDEN OF PROOF V ONUS OF PROOF

1. Burden of Proof

Definition: The burden of proof refers to the legal obligation of a party to prove their claims in a court of
law. This is a general responsibility to establish the truth of the assertions made.

Who Has It: It initially rests on the party making the claim (for example, the prosecution in criminal cases
or the plaintiff in civil cases).

When it Shifts: Generally, the burden of proof does not shift during the trial. It remains with the party
who is required to prove the facts in dispute. However, in some situations (e.g., self-defense in criminal
law), the burden may be partially shifted to the defense.

Standard: The burden of proof often involves a standard that the party must meet, such as "beyond a
reasonable doubt" in criminal cases or "preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases.

Example: In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Onus of Proof

Definition: The onus of proof refers to the duty to introduce sufficient evidence to prove a particular fact
or allegation within the case. It is the responsibility to provide evidence supporting your claim.

Who Has It: Initially, the onus of proof is on the party making the claim, but it can shift during the trial,
especially if the other party introduces evidence to challenge it.

When it Shifts: The onus of proof can shift from one party to the other during the course of a trial,
depending on the evidence presented. For example, if a defendant raises an alibi defense, the onus of
proof may shift to the defendant to prove it.

Standard: The party with the onus of proof must meet the required standard of proof (whether it is
"beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence").
Example: In a civil case, once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the onus of proof may shift to
the defendant to disprove the allegations.

CONCLUSION
These case laws on burden of proof demonstrate the evolving nature of this legal principle. In criminal
cases, the burden is generally on the prosecution, but defendants may shift the focus by raising certain
defenses. In civil cases, the plaintiff typically bears the burden, but the standard of proof required can
vary depending on the nature of the case (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence,
or beyond a reasonable doubt). Each case highlights the importance of safeguarding justice through clear
and consistent application of the burden of proof principle.

The burden of proof under the BSA is a fundamental principle that shapes the landscape of legal
proceedings in India. By clearly delineating the responsibilities of the parties involved, the Act ensures
that justice is served through a fair and equitable process. Understanding the nuances of the burden of
proof is essential for legal practitioners, as it directly impacts the outcome of cases across various
domains of law.