Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY CRIMINAL HONOURS I PROJECT ON IMPORTANCE OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED TO MS SHREEJAYA RAJKUMAR PATIL SHASHWAT DUBEY SEMESTER IX ROLL NO. 139 SUBMITTED ON 26TH SEPTEMBER 216
1
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to sincerely thank the Criminal Honours I Faculty Ms Shreejaya Patil for giving me this project on the “Importance of urden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings! which has widened my knowledge on the scope and relevance of urden of Proof in the Criminal Proceedings in India" Her guidance and support has #een instrumental in the completion of this project "$hank you Ma%am for your consistent support" I%d also like to thank all the authors& writers and columnists whose ideas and works have #een made use of in the completion of this project" My since sincere re grati gratitu tude de also also goes goes out out to the the staff staff and and admi admini nistr strati ation on 'H() 'H()*+ *+ for for the the infrastructure in the form of our li#rary and I$ la# that was a source of great help in the completion of this project" I would also like to thank my friends who have lended me constant support through guidance and inputs which has led to the completion of this project"
SH,SH-,$ .*/0 S/M/S$/1 I2
2
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
CONTENTS
• •
• •
•
DECLARATION...........................................................................!I" CERTIFICATE.............................................................................!II" TABLE OF CASES.....................................................................!III" CHAPTER 1 I($13.*C$I3("""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'456+ 1/S/,1CH M/$H,.3)370 M/$H,.3)3 70""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""'6+ """""""'6+ CHAPTER 2# GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF 7/(/1,) 1*)/S"""""""""""""""""""""" 1*)/S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""'8599+ '8599+ 3(*S 3F P13:I(7 *1./(""""""""""""""""""""" *1./(""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'9;59<+ """""""'9;59<+ CHAPTER 3# SPECIFIC RULES /2C/P$I3(S"""""""""""""""""""" /2C/P$I3(S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""'9=59>+ """"""""""'9=59>+ CHAPTER $# RELEVANCE OF BURDEN OF PROOF S$,(.,1. 3F P13:I(7 ./F/(C/""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""';?+ CONCLUSION""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""';95;;+ """""';95;;+ BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEB REFERENCES """""""""""""""""""""';@+ """""""""""""""""""""';@+
DECLARATION
I& Shashwat .u#ey& here#y declare that& the project work entitled& AImportance of urden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings% su#mitted to H"(")"*"& 1aipur is
3
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings record of an original work done #y me under the guidance of Ms Shreejaya Patil& Faculty Mem#er& H"(")"*"& 1aipur" Shashwat .u#ey atch 2II 1oll (o" 9@> ;;B?>B;?98
CERTIFICATE
$his is to certify that I& Shashwat .u#ey& have prepared the project work entitled& AImportance of urden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings% which is 4
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings su#mitted to H"(")"*"& 1aipur& which is record of an original work done #y me under the a#le guidance of Ms Shreejaya 1ajkumar Patil& Faculty Mem#er& H"(")"*"& 1aipur" Shashwat .u#ey atch 2II 1oll (o" 9@> ;;B?>B;?98
T%&'( )* C%+(+ S.N) . 9"
N%,( )* -( /%+(
C0-%-0)
Soward vs )egatt
,/1 :3) I 9=@8 Page 4> 5
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings ;"
Ranchhodbhai vs Babubhai
,I1 9>=8 SC 6<>
@"
KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra
,I1 9>8; SC 6@<
4"
Pratap vs State of UP
AIR 1983 SC 4687
6
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings CHAPTER I# INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH 1.1 I-)4/-0)
deals with the urden of Proof" Section 105 of the Evidence Act deals ,ccording to this Section& when a person is accused of any offence& the #urden of proving the eistence of circumstances #ringing the case within any of the 7eneral /ceptions in the Indian Penal Code& '46 of 9=8?+& or within any special eception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code& or in any law defining the offence& is upon him& and the Court shall presume the a#sence of such circumstances" Section 9?6 has a special characteristic" It is only applica#le to criminal cases when an accused is interested to take #enefit of Athe general eceptions of the Indian Penal Code or of any of the special laws" T( 5((%' 0/0'(+ ('%-05 -) &4( )* ))* %(#
'i+ the accused is always presumed to #e innocent& and 'ii+ it is prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused" It is only after the prosecution to discharge its initial traditional #urden esta#lishing the complicity of the accused" *nder section 9?6 the #urden lies on the accused"
3nce the prosecution has #een successful to prove the guilt #eyond reasona#le dou#t that the accused had committed offence" It is immediately shifted to the accused who& if he so desires& may set up a defense of #ringing his case cas e within general eceptions of I"P"C" I"P"C" or within special eception or proviso contained in any part of the same code or any other law"
For eample& in a murder case the prosecution proved that it was a case of murder under section section @??& I"P" I"P"C" $he $he accused accused alleged alleged that that #y grave grave and sudden sudden provoc provocati ation on he was deprived of the power of self5control" $he #urden of proof lies on the accused 9" Similarly& an accused of murder alleged that #y reason of unsoundness of mind he did not know the nature of act what he had done" $he #urden lies on the accused" 1 Section 300 of the Indian ena! Code" 7
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
It is prescri#ed rule ;that the #urden is on the accused to prove the eistence of circumstances #ringing his case within any of the eceptions" $he said rule does not whittle down the aiomatic rule of #urden of proof that the prosecution must prove that the accused has committed the offence charged against them"
2 Section 105 of the #vidence Act 8
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings RESEARCH METHODOLOGY# PROBLEM OF THE STUDY
$he #asic pro#lem of the study of this project report relates to the Duestion Duestion of the #urden #urden of proof in criminal proceedings under $he $he )aw of /vidence"
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
$he rationale #ehind the study is to eamine the relevance of the urden of Proof in the Criminal Proceedings in India
OBJECTIVES
$he o#jectives of this project report are stated as followsE 9" $o anal analy yse the the syst system em prov provis isio ions ns rela relati ting ng to the the urd urden en of proo prooff in crim crimin inal al proceedings" ;" $o inDu inDuir iree into into the the rele releva van nce and and need need for for the the #urd #urden en of proof roof in Crim Crimin inal al proceedings"
HYPOTHESIS
$he researcher proceeds to prepare the project report with the idea that #urden of proof is an indispensa#le provision for the principle of natural justice to apply"
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
:arious #ooks& articles and journals have #een referred to in the preparation of this project report" “Law of Evidence by Batuk Lal” is the primary source which has #een heavily relied upon for the preparation of this project report" $he #ook discusses all the #asic elements relating to the judicial accounta#ility needed to make udiciary accounta#le"
RESEARCH DESIGN
$he nature of study involved in the preparation of this project report is doctrinal in nature" $his project has #een done after a thorough research #ased upon intrinsic and etrinsic aspects of the topic"
SOURCES OF DATA DATA 9
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings oth primary and secondary sources of data have #een used in the completion of this project report" $he following primary sources of data have #een used in the project5 9" )egis egisla lati tio ons ;" Case Case )aws )aws or Prece Precede dent ntss @" 7ove 7overn rnme ment nt rep repor orts ts $he following secondary sources of data have #een used in the project5 9" ;" @" 4"
,rticles ooks ournals -e#sites
CHAPTERI7ATION
$his project report is #asically divided into four chapters 'including the introduction+ which are further divided into su#5chapters dealing with the specific issues in relation to the chapter C%-( -( I is the introduc in study study"" C% introductory tory chapter chapter which which deals deals with with the #asic outline outline of C%-( II deals with general concept as to the urden of proof" C%-( III ordinances" C%-(
deals with 7eneral 1ules and C%-( IV deals with the standard of proving defence"
LIMITATION $he scope of study of this project report is limited to the study of the urden of proof under the /vidence ,ct"
CHAPTER II GENERAL CONCEPT OF BURDEN OF PROOF 10
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
$he responsi#ility to prove a thing thing is called the #urden of proof" -hen a person is reDuired to prove the eistence or truthfulness of a fact& he is said to have the #urden of proving that fact" In a case& many facts are alleged and they need to #e proved #efore the court can #ase its judgment on such facts" $he #urden #urden of proof is the o#ligation on a party party to esta#lish such facts in issue or relevant facts in a case to the reDuired degree of certainty in order to prove its case" For eample& in a case of murder& prosecution may allege that all the conditions constituting a murder are fulfilled" ,ll such conditions are facts in issue and there is an o#ligation to prove their eistence" $his o#ligation is a #urden of proof" In general& every party has to prove a fact that goes in his favor or against his opponent& this o#ligation is nothing #ut #urden of proof" S(/-0) 11 O* E80(/( A/- (*0(+ &4( )* ))* %+ *)'')+ E
-hen a person is #ound to prove the eistence of any fact& it is said that the #urden of proof lies on that person" $he important Duestion is who is supposed to prove the various facts alleged in a case@" In other words& on whom should the #urden of proving a fact lieG $he rules for allocation of #urden of proof proof are governed primarily #y the provisions in Section 9?9 to 9?6" $he rules propounded #y these sections can #e categoried as 7eneral rules and Specific rules"
GENERAL RULES 3 Section 101 of the #vidence Act 11
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings R4'( 1 5 ,s per Section 9?9& specifies the #asic rule a#out who is supposed to prove a fact" It says that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or lia#ility dependent on the eistence of facts which he asserts& must prove that those facts eist" For eample& , desires a Court to give judgment that shall #e punished for a crime which , says has committed" , must prove that has committed the crime" c rime" ,nother eample 5 , desires a Court to give judgment judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession possession of & #y reason of facts which he asserts& and which denies& to #e true" , must prove the eistence of those facts"
Facts can #e put in two categories 5 those that positively affirm something and those that deny something" For eample& the statement& G, is the owner of this landG is an affirmative statement& while G is not the owner of this landG is a denial" $he rule given in Section 9?9 means that the person who asserts the affirmative of an issue& the #urden of proof lies on his to prove it" $hus& the person who makes the statement that G, is the owner of the landG& has the #urden to prove it" $his rule is useful for determining the ownership of the initial #urden" -hoever wishes the court to take certain action against the opposite party #ased on certain facts& he ought to first prove those facts"
However& it is not very simple to categorie a fact as asserting the affirmative" For eample& in the case of Soward vs )egatt& )egatt &4 a landlord suing the tenant asserted that the tenant did not repair the house" Here& he was asserting the negative" ut the same statement can also #e said affirmatively as the tenant let the house dilapidate" In this case& )ord ,I(7/1 o#served that In ascertaining which party is asserting the affirmative the court looks to the su#stance and not the language used" )ooking at the su#stance of this case& the plaintiff had to prove that the premises were not repaired"
4 A#R $%& I 1836' 48" 12
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings $hus& the court should arrive at the su#stance of the issue and should reDuire that party to #egin who in su#stance& though though may not #e in form& alleges the affirmative of the issue"
13
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings B4( )* P))* % O4+ )* P))*
$he term urden of Proof is used in two difference senses 5 the #urden of proof as a matter of law and pleading& and the #urden of proof as a matter of adducing evidence also called as onus" $here is a su#tle distinction #etween #urden of proof and onus of proof& which was Ranchhodbhai vs Babubhai 5" $he first one is the #urden to prove the eplained in the case of Ranchhodbhai
main contention of party reDuesting the action of the court& while the second one is the #urden to produce actual evidence" $he $he first one is constant and is always upon the claimant #ut the second one shifts to the other party as and when one one party successfully produces evidence supporting its case" For eample& in a case where , is suing for payment of his services& the #urden of proof as a matter of law is upon , to prove that he provided services for which has not paid" ut if claims that the services were not up to the mark& the onus of #urden as to adducing evidence shifts to to prove the deficiency in service" Further& if upon providing such evidence& , claims that the services were provided as negotiated in the contract& the onus again shifts to , to prove that the services meet the Duality as specified in the contract"
$he net rule determines who has the onus of proof"
R4'( 2 5 ,I1 9>=; SC 4=6 14
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings ,s per Section 9?;& the #urden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side" $he following illustrations eplain this point 5 possess ion& and which& as , asserts& was I''4+-%-0) 1 5 , sues for land of which is in possession& left to , #y the will of C& Js father" f ather" If no evidence were given on either e ither side& would #e entitled to retain his possession" $herefore the #urden of proof is on ," I''4+-%-0) 2 5 , sues for money due on a #ond" $he eecution of the #ond is admitted&
#ut says that it was o#tained #y fraud& which which , denies" If no evidence were given on either side& , would succeed& as the #ond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved" $herefore the #urden of proof is on "
R4'( 3 ,s per Section 9?@& the person who wants the court to #elieve in an alleged fact is the one who is supposed to prove that fact unless it is provided #y any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person" For eample& , prosecutes for theft& and wishes the Court to #elieve that admitted the theft to C" , must prove the admission" ,nother eample 5 wishes the Court to #elieve that& at the time time in Duestion& he was elsewhere" He must prove it" Further& as specified in Section 9?4& if a person wants the court to #elieve in a fact that assumes the eistence of another fact& it is up to the person to prove the other fact also" For eample& , wishes to prove a dying declaration #y " , must prove Js death" , wishes to prove& #y secondary evidence& the contents of a lost document" document" , must prove that the document has #een lost"
CHAPTER III 15
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings S(/0*0/ R4'(+ $hese rules specifically put the #urden on proving certain facts on particular persons 5
R4'( 1 5 ,s per Section 9?8& when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person&
the #urden of proving that fact is upon him" -hen a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest& the #urden of proving that intention is upon him" him" For eample& , is charged with traveling on a railway without a ticket" $he #urden of proving that he had a ticket is on him"
R4'(+ )* P(+4,-0) Section 9?< and 9?= say that if a person was known to #e alive within @? yrs the presumption is that he is alive and if the person has not #een heard of for seven years #y those who have naturally heard from him if he had #een alive& the presumption is that the person is death" ut no presumption can #e draw as to the time of death" Sections 9?> esta#lishes the #urden in case of some relations such as landlord and tenant& principle and agent etc" Further sections specify the rules a#out #urden of proof in case of terrorism& dowry death& and rape"
16
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings E:/(-0)+ E:/(-0) 1 $he general rule in criminal cases is that the accused is presumed innocent" It is the prosecution who is reDuired to esta#lish the guilt of the accused without any dou#t" dou#t" ,t ,t the same time& the accused is not reDuired to prove his innocence without any dou#t #ut only has to create reasona#le dou#t that he may not #e guilty" guilty" Section 9?6 specifies an eception to this general rule" -hen an accused claims the #enefit of the 7eneral /ception clauses of IPC& the #urden of proving that he is entitled to such #enefit is upon him" For eample& if an accused claims the #enefit of insanity in a murder trial& it is up to the accused to prove that he was insane at the time of committing the crime" State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra, 6 SC eplained this point" In this case& In the case of K M Nanavati vs State
(anavati was accused of murdering Prem ,huja& ,huja& his wifeJs paramour& while (anavati claimed innocence on account of grave and sudden provocation" $he defenceJs claim was that when (anavati met Prem at the latterJs #edroom& Prem had just come out of the #ath dressed only in a towelK an angry (anavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him if he intends to marry Sylvia and look after his children" Prem replied& G-ill I marry every woman I sleep withLG& which further enraged (anavati" Seeing Prem go for the gun& enclosed in a #rown packet& (anavati too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle& scuffle& PremJs hand caused the gun to go off and instantly kill him" Here& SC held that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as a general rule and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused #eyond any dou#t" ut when an accused relies upon the general eception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code& Section 9?6 of the /vidence ,ct raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a #urden on him to re#ut the said presumption" $hus& it was upon the defence to prove that there eisted a grave and sudden provocation" In a#sence of such proof& (anavati was convicted of murder"
6 ,I1 9>8; SC 6@< 17
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings E:/(-0) 2 ,dmission 5 , fact which has #een admitted #y a party and which is against the interest of that party& is held against the part y" If the fact is contested #y the party& then the #urden of proof rests upon the party who made the admission" For eample& , was recorded as saying that he committed theft at the said premises" If , wants to deny this admission& the #urden of proof rests on , to prove so"
/ception @ 5 Presumptions 5 Court presumes the eistence of certain things" For eample& as per Section 9?& presumes that when two people have #een acting as per the relationship of landlord 5 tenant& principle 5 agent& etc& such relationship still eists and any#ody who contends that such relationship has ceased to eist has to provide proof <" Section 99? presumes that the person who has the possession of a property is the owner of that property" ,s ,s per Section 99@,& -hen the Duestion is whether the commission of suicide #y a woman had #een a#etted #y her her hus#and or any relative of her hus#and and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her hus#and or such relative of her hus#and had su#jected her to cruelty& the court may presume& having regard to all the other circumstances of the case& that such suicide had #een a#etted #y her hus#and or #y such relative of her hus#and" ,s ,s per Section 99@& when the Duestion is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon #efore her death such woman had #een su#jected #y such person to cruelty or harassment for& or in connection with& any a ny demand for dowry& the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death"
$hus& when the presumption of the court is in favor of a party& part y& the #urden of disproving it rests on the opposite party"
7 Section 109 of #vidence Act 18
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings CHAPTER IV RELEVANCE RELEVANCE OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF S-%% )* )805 (*(+(# *nder section 9?6 if an accused claims for the #enefits of eceptions eceptions the #urden of proving proving the case must fall within eception and it lies upon him" ut the onus of proof #y the accused is not eactly the same as that of the prosecution" ,n accused is not reDuired to adduce leading evidence to prove his case #eyond reasona#le dou#t" “$he /vidence ,ct does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and vigour as the prosecution is reDuired to prove in a criminal charge" It is sufficient if he is a#le to prove his case #y the standard of preponderance of pro#a#ilities envisaged #y Section 9?6 of the /vidence ,ct"! $hus& the law reDuires that the onus of proof placed on the accused claiming the #enefit of eceptions and must #e tested tes ted #y # y the standard of “preponderance of pro#a#ility"! -hile the prosecution is reDuired to prove its case #eyond a reasona#le dou#t& the accused can discharge his onus #y esta#lishing a preponderance of pro#a#ility" $he Supreme Court has made it clear if the evidence is not sufficient to discharge the #urden under section 9?6 it may raise a reasona#le dou#t as regards the one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself in which case the accused would #e entitled to #e acDuitted" In Pratap v State of !P " ! where the pro#a#ility that the accused had caused death in self5 defense defense was held to #e sufficient sufficient even though though he had not taken his defense in the committal proceedings" ,gain the Supreme Court held that the #urden of proving that the case comes within any of the general eceptions can #e discharged #y showing a preponderance of pro#a#ility" *nder section 9?6 of the /vidence ,ct the #urden of proof proof is on the accused& who sets up the plea of self5defence& and in the a#sence of proof& it is not possi#le for the court to presume the truth of the plea of self defence"
8 AIR 1983 SC 4687 19
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings ut& in a case of ro##ery and murder the opportunity of the accused to commit the crime was proved #y circumstantial evidence" $hey were found to #e in possession of the stolen articl es& and they had no eplanation for their possession" ,n adverse inference can #e drawn against the accused of murder and ro##ery"% -hile the prosecution is reDuired to pro#e the case #eyond reasona#le dou#t& the accused can discharge the onus #y esta#lishing a mere preponderance of pro#a#ility" pro#a#ility"
$he onus of an accused person will #e compared with the oneness of a party in a civil case and just as in a civil proceedings the court trying an issue makes its divisions #y adopting the test of pro#a#ilities& so must a criminal court hold that the plea made #y the accused is proved if a preponderance of pro#a#ilities is esta#lished #y the evidence led #y him" /ven& where the accused has not pleaded eception the accused cannot #e denied the #enefit of eceptions" -hen the right of private defense is pleaded& the #urden of the accused only shifts after the prosecution has discharged its initial #urden of proving its case #eyond reasona#le dou#t" Cons ConseD eDue uentl ntly y& the the weak weakne ness ss in the the defe defens nsee case case woul would d not not ensu ensure re adva advant ntag agee of the the prosecution" “-hich is still to discharge its original onus that never shiftsL!
-here an accused person in his statement under section @9@& Cr" PC raised the defense of unsoundness unsoundness of mind #ut the circumstances circumstances indicated that he acted under grave and sudden sudden provocation" It was held that the accused could not #e denied the #enefit of the defense of /ception 9 to Section @?? of I"P"C"
20
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings S455(+-0)#
In criminal trial it is a general principle that a person accused of crime is always presumed to #e innocent and the prosecution on whom #urden lies is to prove the guilt of the accused #eyond reassem#le dou#t" In criminal trial the degree of pro#a#ility of guilt has #een very much higher" $hough $hough this standard is a higher standard& there is no a#solute standard" s tandard" (o man can #e convicted of an offence where the theory of his guilt is no more likely l ikely than the theory of his innocence" “If there is the slightest reasona#le or pro#a#le chance of innocence of an accused& the #enefit of it must #e given to him"! -here the presumption of innocence is reversed #y a statutory provision& the #urden is on the accused person" -here an assault rifle is found in innocent possession of a person& the Supreme Court held that such #urden should not #e heavy as that of the prosecution #ut even so should #e greater pro#a#ility" $he researcher would suggest a strict adherence to the aforesaid discussed rules in order to ensure that the trial is just& fair and reasona#le for the accused" For this& a strict survelliance is the need of the hour"
21
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
CONCLUSION $he term urden of Proof is used in two difference senses 5 the #urden of proof as a matter of law and pleading& and the #urden of proof as a matter of adducing evidence also called as onus" $here is a su#tle distinction #etween #urden of proof and onus of proof" $he responsi#ility to prove a thing thing is called the #urden of proof" -hen a person is reDuired to prove the eistence or truthfulness of a fact& he is said to have the #urden of proving that fact" In a case& many facts are alleged and they need to #e proved #efore the court can #ase its judgment on such facts" $he #urden #urden of proof is the o#ligation on a party party to esta#lish such facts in issue or relevant facts in a case to the reDuired degree of certainty in order to prove its case" For eample& in a case of murder& prosecution may allege that all the conditions constituting a murder are fulfilled" ,ll such conditions are facts in issue and there is an o#ligation to prove their eistence" $his o#ligation is a #urden of proof" (o man can #e convicted of an offence offence where the theory of his guilt is no more likely than the theory of his innocence" “If there is the slightest reasona#le or pro#a#le chance of innocence of an accused& the #enefit of it must #e given to him"! -here the presumption of innocence is reversed #y a statutory provision& the #urden is on the accused person" -here an assault rifle is found in innocent possession of a person& the Supreme Court held that such #urden should not #e heavy as that of the prosecution #ut even so should #e #e greater pro#a#ility" $hus the Principle of urden of Proof is very essential for the due administration of justice"
REFERNCES BOOKS 22
Importance of Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings • • •
• • • •
atuk )al& law of evidence& :olume ;& >6 th ed&;?9?+ 1atanlal and .hirajlal& $he )aw of /vidence ';@ rd ed&;?99+ Sarkar& )aw of /vidence '9
WEBSITES www"manupatra"com www"heinonline"com www"westlaw"com www"indiakanoon"com
23
