What is the Burden of Proof under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023?

Introduction

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), previously known as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), serves as a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. It governs the admissibility, relevance, and evaluation of evidence in courts of law. Among its fundamental principles is the concept of the "burden of proof," (also referred as ‘Onus Probandi’) which determines which party in a legal proceeding must substantiate their claims or defenses with evidence.

Unlike new law the phrase “burden of proof” was not explicitly defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it plays a crucial role in litigation. It refers to the legal duty or obligation placed on a party in a legal proceeding to establish facts that will convince the court to decide in their favor. This responsibility is essential for ensuring that claims and defenses in court are backed by credible evidence.

The burden of proof is critical in ensuring fairness and justice by placing the responsibility of evidence on the party best equipped to provide it. Chapter VII of the BSA outlines the rules surrounding the burden of proof, with provisions aimed at balancing the evidentiary obligations of the parties involved. This blog delves into the intricacies of these provisions, discussing their implications and applications in various legal contexts.

Understanding the Burden of Proof

The term “burden of proof” refers to the obligation of a party in a legal dispute to establish the truth of their claims through admissible evidence. Under the BSA, the burden of proof is governed by Sections 104 to 114, which specify who bears this responsibility under different circumstances.

The principle behind the burden of proof ensures that the judicial process is fair, logical, and devoid of baseless assertions. The party making an assertion is required to substantiate it, fostering accountability and preventing frivolous litigation.

In the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh[1], the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence. If the prosecution fails to do so, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. This principle is particularly critical when dealing with circumstantial evidence, as the Court stated that if two possible views exist—one favorable to the accused and the other against: the view that benefits the accused should be adopted.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the conviction of an innocent person is a far graver issue than the acquittal of a guilty individual. It emphasized the need for strict adherence to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, ensuring impartiality in judicial proceedings. The Court underscored that wrongful convictions harm the public trust in the judicial system and that judges must remain neutral and independent. To safeguard against abuse, Indian law empowers judges under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to act with discretion to ensure justice is served, preventing both wrongful acquittals and unlawful convictions.

Key Provisions Related to the Burden of Proof

1. Section 104: General Rule for the Burden of Proof Section 104 states that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a fact. This means that if a party claims a particular fact is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence supporting their claim. For instance, in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Section 105: Burden of Proof in Civil Cases This section specifies that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party that would fail if no evidence is presented. Essentially, the claimant must substantiate their claims, while the opposing party primarily needs to counter the presented evidence. This ensures that the initiating party supports their allegations with credible evidence.

3. Section 106: Particular Facts When a party relies on a specific fact not encompassed by the general burden of proof, they must prove the existence of that fact. For example, in a contractual dispute, if one party claims a modification to the original contract, they must provide evidence to substantiate this claim.

4. Section 107: Essential Facts for Admissibility This section emphasizes that the burden of proving a fact essential to the case lies on the party relying on it. For example, if a plaintiff claims damages, they must provide evidence of the damage incurred.

5. Section 108: Exceptions in Criminal Cases When an accused claims their actions fall under an exception outlined in law, the burden of proof shifts to them. The court assumes that exceptional circumstances do not exist unless the accused provides evidence to prove otherwise.

6. Section 109: Facts Within Special Knowledge This provision addresses situations where a fact is uniquely within a particular person’s knowledge. The onus to prove such a fact rest with that person. For example, if an individual claims they were at a specific location at a given time, they must provide evidence to support this assertion.

7. Section 110: Proof of Death Within Thirty Years In cases concerning life and death, this section establishes that if a person was known to be alive within the past 30 years, anyone asserting their death must provide evidence. This ensures clarity in inheritance and other legal matters.

8. Section 111: Proof of Life After Seven Years of Absence If a person has not been heard from for seven years by those who would naturally communicate with them, the burden shifts to those asserting that the person is still alive. This provision helps address issues related to missing persons and their legal implications.

9. Section 112: Relationships of Partners, Landlords, and Agents This section pertains to presumptions in established relationships. If individuals have acted as partners, landlords and tenants, or principals and agents, anyone contesting the existence or continuation of such a relationship must provide proof.

10. Section 113: Ownership Presumption Possession implies ownership. This section states that anyone challenging the ownership of a possessor must provide evidence to refute the presumption of ownership. This principle simplifies disputes over property and assets.

11. Section 114: Proof of Good Faith in Fiduciary Transactions In fiduciary relationships, where one party has significant influence over another, the onus to prove good faith in transactions lies with the more powerful party. This protects vulnerable parties from potential exploitation.

Implications of the Burden of Proof

1. Influence on Legal Strategies The burden of proof profoundly impacts the strategies employed by litigants. Parties must meticulously plan their cases, focusing on presenting persuasive evidence and anticipating counterarguments.

2. Fairness in Judicial Processes By allocating the responsibility of proof, the principle ensures that no party is wrongfully burdened or unfairly advantaged. This contributes to a balanced and impartial judicial process.

3. Prevention of Baseless Claims The burden of proof deters individuals from making frivolous or unfounded claims, as they must substantiate their assertions with credible evidence.

4. Protection of Vulnerable Parties Provisions such as Section 114 highlight the protective role of the burden of proof, safeguarding individuals in fiduciary or unequal relationships from exploitation.

Applications of the Burden of Proof in Legal Contexts

Criminal Law 

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[2]. Sections 108 and 109 further delineate scenarios where the accused must provide evidence, such as when invoking exceptions or justifying actions under specific circumstances. This standard ensures that the rights of the accused are protected, reflecting the principle that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. Special provisions also exist for specific crimes, such as terrorism or drug trafficking, where presumptions may shift the burden of proof in limited contexts to balance public safety concerns with individual rights.

Civil Law 

In civil disputes, the burden of proof typically rests on the claimant, as highlighted in Sections 105 and 113. For instance, a plaintiff in a breach of contract case must prove the existence and violation of the contract. However, the standard of proof in civil cases is usually the "preponderance of evidence," which is less stringent than the criminal standard[3]. This distinction is designed to account for the different stakes involved in civil versus criminal cases. Additionally, certain civil matters, such as negligence claims, may require the claimant to prove not only the occurrence of a breach but also causation and damages.[4]

Moreover, in cases involving statutory rights, such as consumer protection or environmental damage claims, courts may impose specific evidentiary requirements tailored to the nature of the dispute. This ensures fairness while promoting accountability among parties engaged in such specialized disputes.

Property Disputes 

Sections 110 and 113 simplify property-related disputes by establishing presumptions about ownership and life status, requiring challenging parties to present evidence to refute these presumptions. For example, a person in possession of a property is presumed to be its rightful owner unless proven otherwise. This principle prevents frivolous claims and promotes stability in property ownership. (Presumption based on the maxim 'possession follows title' that possession must be deemed to follow title, arises only where there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else.)[5] In cases involving ancestral or disputed land, courts often rely on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and expert evaluations to ascertain ownership.[6]In addition, laws surrounding adverse possession require the claimant to prove uninterrupted and open possession for a statutory period, adding an extra layer of complexity. Such cases often involve detailed analysis of historical records and long-standing usage patterns to resolve ownership conflicts.

Family Law 

In family law cases, such as disputes over paternity or inheritance, the burden of proof ensures clarity and justice. For example, proving the existence of a marriage may fall under Section 112. DNA testing and other scientific methods have increasingly played a critical role in resolving family disputes, particularly in paternity cases, where the burden of proof may involve balancing ethical considerations with legal imperatives[7]. Similarly, in inheritance disputes, the claimant must establish their legal entitlement, often by presenting wills, birth certificates, or other documents. Family law also addresses sensitive issues such as child custody, where the burden of proof may focus on demonstrating the best interests of the child. This involves evaluating parental behavior, living conditions, and emotional bonds, requiring a holistic approach to ensure fair outcomes.

Challenges and Critiques

While the burden of proof is a robust principle, it is not without challenges. Critics argue that:

1. Complexity in Application: Interpreting and applying the burden of proof can be complex, particularly in cases involving multiple issues.
2. Potential for Misuse: Parties may exploit evidentiary obligations to delay proceedings or evade accountability.
3. Disadvantage to Vulnerable Parties: In some instances, vulnerable parties may struggle to meet their evidentiary burdens due to lack of resources or access to evidence.

Other than this the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of justice, signifying that every individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Justice Thomas, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Omar[8], highlighted the necessity of reevaluating this traditional concept. He argued that the conventional approach, which places the burden of proof solely on the prosecution, often benefits individuals accused of heinous crimes, potentially leading to societal harm.

In instances where the prosecution successfully establishes certain key facts, the court is required to infer the existence of related circumstances and rely on the evidence presented. Once the prosecution satisfies the court with credible proof, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. This shift occurs because the accused is often uniquely positioned to provide information about the incident in question. This principle is referred to as the "reverse onus clause," where the responsibility to prove innocence lies with the accused under specific conditions.

Conclusion

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the burden of proof remains a foundational principle of India's legal system, ensuring a structured approach to justice. It delineates clear responsibilities among parties in a legal dispute, fostering a sense of accountability while upholding fairness in judicial proceedings. This statutory framework strikes a delicate balance in evidentiary obligations, reinforcing the ideals of justice and equity at the core of the Indian legal process.

For legal practitioners, a nuanced understanding of the burden of proof is crucial. It shapes litigation strategies, guiding the presentation of evidence and influencing case outcomes. Mastery of this principle allows lawyers to navigate complex legal scenarios, ensuring that their clients' rights are safeguarded and that justice is effectively advocated for within the courtroom.

Beyond the legal fraternity, the burden of proof serves as a pillar of public confidence in the judiciary. By emphasizing fairness and transparency in adjudication, it ensures that justice is not only delivered but also perceived as impartial and trustworthy. This strengthens societal trust in the legal system, fostering a sense of security and faith in the rule of law.

[1] 1974 SCR (1) 722.

[2] Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.

[3] Avitel Post Studioz Limited And Ors. v. Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) Limited AIRONLINE 2020 SC 691.

[4] The Managing Director, Kerala Tourism v. Deepti Singh (2019) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 788.

[5] Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala Case no. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2843-2844 OF 2010.

[6] M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010.

[7] Bhabani Prasad Jena Etc vs Convenr.Sec. Orissa S.Comn. 2010 (8) SCC 633.

[8] 2000 (8) SCC 382.

Download