Burden of proof

What is 'Burden of Proof'?

Burden of Proof refers to the burden of adducing evidence. It denotes the legal standard required to establish or refute a fact based on the evidence presented,  ensuring that legal decisions are grounded in facts, rather than conjecture.

Official Definition of 'Burden of Proof'

While the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) does not provide for an official definition of the Burden of Proof, Chapter VII, spanning Sections 104 to 114, sets forth a legislative framework regulating this legal standard. It fosters a balanced approach to fact-finding and legal presumptions, assigning the obligation of presenting evidence to the party most aptly positioned to do so.

According to Section 104 of the BSA (Section 101 of the IEA), any individual who asserts the existence of certain facts to establish a legal right or liability must prove that those facts exist. In such cases, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. Expanding on this, Section 105 of the BSA (Section 102 of the IEA) describes the "onus of proof," emphasizing that it lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were presented by either side.

Section 106 of the BSA (Section 103 of the IEA) addresses the burden of proving specific facts, requiring an individual to substantiate related foundational facts before presenting further evidence. Similarly, Section 107 (Section 104 of the IEA) reinforces this obligation, asserting that the admissibility of evidence hinges on the individual's ability to establish relevant underlying facts.

In criminal matters, Section 108 of the BSA (Section 105 of the IEA)  imposes a unique responsibility on the accused to prove circumstances falling under General Exceptions or special provisions. Failing this, the Court presumes the absence of such circumstances. Furthermore, Section 109 (Section 106 of the IEA) places the burden of proof on the individual possessing exclusive knowledge of a fact, reinforcing the principle that those with greater access to the truth must substantiate their claims.

Presumptions about life and death are addressed under Sections 110 and 111 (Sections 107 and 108 of the IEA). When a person is shown to have been alive within the past 30 years, the burden to prove their death lies on the party claiming they are deceased. Conversely, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have, the burden shifts to the individual claiming they are alive.

In matters of relationships, Section 112 (Section 109 of the IEA) establishes that when individuals have acted as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden to prove the cessation of such relationships rests on the party affirming that the relationship no longer exists. Likewise, Section 113 (Section 110 of the IEA) dictates that when a person is shown to be in possession of property, the onus lies on the individual challenging their ownership to prove otherwise.

Lastly, Section 114 (Section 111 of the IEA)  introduces the concept of active confidence in relationships, stating that in transactions where one party is in a position of trust or influence, the burden of proving good faith rests on that party.

The Malimath Committee Report defines the burden of proof as the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, ensuring the presumption of innocence is protected. This is a key part of the criminal justice system, meant to prevent wrongful convictions. However, the report points out that this strict standard often favors the accused, leading to low conviction rates. To address this, it suggests widening the definition by shifting the burden of proof in cases like organized crime and terrorism, where the accused might need to provide some evidence of their innocence. This change aims to balance individual rights with public safety and make the system more effective in handling serious crimes.

“He who alleges must prove”, forms the foundation of this standard and assigns the responsibility of substantiating one’s claims to the party making them. However, there exist significant exceptions to this rule, in consideration of social inequality, power imbalances etc. For instance, in consumer protection cases, the burden of proof rests with the manufacturers. Therefore, consumers are relieved of the responsibility of proving defects or deficiencies, while manufacturers are to demonstrate an absence of negligence.

In insurance disputes, the onus lies with the insurers to justify claim rejections, ensuring that policyholders are not unjustly denied compensation through fine print exploitation. Similarly, industrial accidents warrant companies to adhere to strict/absolute liability standards. Here, enterprises are required to demonstrate strict compliance with safety protocols, or compensate victims for harm caused by hazardous substance leaks, irrespective of fault. Likewise, in cases of dowry death, the burden shifts to the male counterparts to establish their innocence, reflecting the legal system’s acknowledgment of gender-based power imbalances that often perpetuate such crimes.

In criminal trials, while the prosecution typically bears the burden of proof, certain exceptions, such as exclusionary rules, shift this burden to the accused. In such cases, the accused must prove their defense on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. If the accused claims insanity, intoxication, or self-defense, the responsibility to establish the applicability of these exceptions rests with them (Section 105 IEA). Additionally, when the accused raises an alibi, they must establish supporting evidence (Section 103 IEA). Section 106 of the IEA places the burden of proving facts exclusively within the accused's knowledge, such as possession of a train ticket, upon the accused.

This principle of shifting burdens, forms the very basis of the doctrine of reverse onus, where the burden of proof transitions from the prosecution to the defense. Invoked in criminal cases, it requires the defendant to establish their innocence, rather than relying solely on the prosecution to establish guilt. P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala explicitly lays down that reverse onus clauses cannot be deemed ultra vires, meaning they cannot be considered beyond the scope of legal authority.

Types of 'Burden of Proof'

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT	PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE	CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring the jury to be certain of guilt, with no plausible alternative explanation arising from the given evidence.	Most civil cases require the party bearing the burden of proof to present evidence establishing that the fact in question is more likely true than not.	Utilised in both civil, and criminal cases, this standard of proof requires evidence that is significantly more likely to be true than false,  compelling one to conclude that the claim is highly probable. As such, it proves to be more stringent than ‘preponderance of evidence’ but less rigorous than ‘beyond  a reasonable doubt’.

Difference between Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof

As established in Addagada Raghavamma vs Addagada Chenchamma, a fundamental distinction exists between the burden of proof and the onus of proof. The burden of proof rests on the party responsible for proving a fact and remains fixed throughout the trial. In contrast, the onus of proof is subject to change and shifts between parties as the evaluation of evidence progresses. This shifting of the onus is integral to the process of examining and weighing the evidence presented in a case.

Variations across High Courts:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in their Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, mentions how “every issue of fact shall be so framed as to indicate on whom the burden of proof lies.” Similarly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that every issue of fact must explicitly state which party is responsible for proving it, allowing the trial to proceed in an organized and logical manner. Typically, the party bearing this responsibility is required to present their evidence first, aligning with procedural guidelines such as Orders VI and VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Properly framing issues is key, not just for the court’s efficiency but also for preventing unnecessary costs and delays, especially when preliminary issues can resolve disputes early.

Challenges

1. Meeting the burden of proof often presents significant challenges, particularly when the evidence required is circumstantial, inaccessible, or difficult to obtain. Even in cases where the facts strongly support a party’s position, the inability to substantiate claims with admissible evidence can hinder the pursuit of justice and significantly undermine the legal process.
2. The shifting of the burden of proof during a trial, such as in cases involving legal presumptions, can create significant confusion for the parties involved.