What is burden of proof?

On whom is the burden of proof? 

What is the burden of proof? And on what does it happen.  

What is the burden of proof? know full details 

The function of the law of evidence is to lay down the rules by which facts are proved and disproved before the court .  The rules of the procedure that can be followedto provea fact are laid down by the law of evidence . The method of evidence is  a very important method in itself

 The judicial process of the whole of India rests on the foundation of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. 

 The Evidence Act plays a crucial role in both criminal and civil law . It is through this Evidence Act that it is decided whether the evidence will be admitted or not. purpose of making the act

    

 

 In relation to evidence, a codified method has to be created, through which the principles of the original law can be reached. It is through this Evidence Act that the objective of which so many Acts have been made is reached. Any action or prosecution is conducted, the prosecution is completely based on this act only. Without the Evidence Act, prosecution cannot be conceived and no civil right can be upheld. The Evidence Act 1872 has been the least amended since its creation till date .

Preamble to the Evidence Act 1872 

 It is clear from the above that this Act is vast, as it defines , consolidates and amends the concept of law of evidence .

Principle of 'burden of proof' in the law of evidence

The principle of  ' burden of proof ' is of utmost importance in the law of evidence. The burden of proof has also been clearly mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act. It may be said that the principle of burden of proof is one of the basic principles of Evidence Act and this principle is the fundamental principle of the methods of evidence.

Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act

 " Whoever desires a court to give a judgment in respect of any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he alleges, must prove that those facts exist. " 

 When a person is bound to prove the existence of a fact, that person is said to have the burden of proof ."  

 

 The principle of the section is that the burden of proving such fact shall lie on the party who seeks to satisfy the court of the existence of a fact and seeks a decision thereon. 

 

If a person wants to get possession of a property on the ground that he is the owner of the property, he will have to prove his existence. Similarly, if a person wants to get a person punished for a crime in a court of law, then the prosecutor has to prove that the person is guilty of the crime.

 In a way, the principle can be understood in such a way that the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the allegation, that is, the onus of proof lies on the person making the allegation .

burden of proof and burden of proof 

 Comparing the burden of proof and the burden of proof , the Gujarat High Court has observed that there is an essential distinction between the two. The burden of proof is on the person who has to prove a fact and it never changes, but the burden of proof keeps on changing. Its weight varies continuously in the evaluation of evidence. The burden of proof in any suit and action keeps on changing. This burden sometimes changes its place on which party and sometimes on which party.

on which party the burden of proof lies 

 This section draws attention to the fact that-

 If evidence is not given from either side, then the burden of proof lies on the party whose case fails. 

 If A sues B for recovery of loan money and intermediate profit, A's remedy fails if neither party gives evidence, therefore A has the burden of proof.

 Section 102 of the Evidence Act 

 Under this provision has been made on whom the burden of proof will be. This section says that "the burden of proof in any suit or proceeding shall be on the person who fails if no evidence is given on either side." There has been an important debate related to this principle, which 

 The case of KM Nanavati Vs State of Maharashtra is called. In this case the lover of the wife was shot dead by her husband . The woman's husband was a naval officer . His wife had confessed to the adultery . She told that her lover came to her house and both of them were caught red handed by the husband . The husband took out his revolver and the bullet suddenly went off . Premi Ahuja died on the spot due to firing . In this case, the Supreme Court decided that 

 The onus was on the accused to show that there was a struggle, that the shot was fired either accidentally or in self-defence. He was found guilty because no such thing could be proved .

 In the case of Meva Devi Vs. Ramprakash, two persons were run over by a motor . The owner of the motor stated that the accident occurred due to failure of the string and brakes . The Court said that it was for him to prove that and also that he had taken due care to keep the vehicle roadworthy . Here, through this episode, the court has clearly stated that if a person wants to escape with the help of an exception, then the onus of proving the exception will be on the person who wants to take advantage of the exception.  If the cause of motor brake failure was on the person and it resulted in loss of life, then the burden of proof is on the motor owner .shall be on the person who is being prosecuted or who is sued for compensation.

In the case of Prabodh Kumar Das v . Prafulla Kumar Das, it has been held that the burden of proof in the case of a bequest lies initially on the person who seeks to take advantage of it.   It becomes even more overwhelming when there have been circumstances giving rise to suspicion. The Calcutta High Court was convinced of the correctness of a will because the testator was childless and was living with his brother's son  during his last days . He also gave him his property. 

 

An illiterate woman living under veil signed a donation letter of her entire property in favor of her son . The burden was on the boy. The facts prove that it was a valid document , signed with complete freedom. The court did not accept that evidence because there were material infirmities in the will. This decision has been given in the case of Ranka Nidhi Sahu Vs. Nand Kishori Sahu .