Open Access Research Article
RELEVANCE OF PRESUMPTION IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Published Paper
Article Details
RELEVANCE OF PRESUMPTION IN THE LAW
OF EVIDENCE
AUTHORED BY
- ZOCHHUANMAWII
LL.M
(Criminal Law)
Amity
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
ABSTRACT
A presumption, either of law or of
fact, is an independent piece of evidence that, up until the contrary is
established, may or must be derived from a particular set of facts. It has, in
general, carved out a niche for itself because it may be used in both civil and
criminal situations.
Therefore, this article will look at
several instances where presumptions must or may be made before there can be a
conviction and how they have been impacted by different judicial and statutory
authorities.
INTRODUCTION
The legislative framework on the
relevance of assumption in the “law of evidence” is essential in determining
the use and application of presumptions in the legal system. While there are
different legislative frameworks in various jurisdictions, most countries have
statutory provisions that guide the use of presumptions in the law of evidence.
Below “IEA 1872”, there are numerous
provisions concerning to presumptions,but the first provision concerning
“presumption” comes below section 4, which states as following:-Sec 4 -
"May presume" - Whensoever it is provided by this Act that “Court may
presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it
is disproved, or may call for proof of it”.
"Shall presume" – Whenever
its engaged by this Act that the “Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard
such fact as proved, unless and until it disproved”;
"Conclusive proof" – When
one fact is professed by this Act to be “conclusive proof of another, Court
shall, on proof of one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow
evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it”.
The other provisions regarding to
presumption under the “IEA 1872” can bediscussed as follows:
Section 79- 90A of the IEA deals with Assumption as to Papers
1. “Section 111A”:Presumption as to
certain offences
2. “Sec 113A”: Assumption as to abetment
of suicide by a wedded female
3. “Sec 113B”: Assumption as to dowry
death
4. “Sec 114”: Court may assume being
of certain facts
5. “Sec 114 A”: Assumption as to
nonappearance of accord in firm prosecutions for rape
Section 79-90 A of the IEA deals with Presumption as to Documents
The “IEA of 1872” is the primary
legislation that governs the admissibility ofevidence and the proof of facts in
Indian courts. “Sections 79-90A of the Act” deal with presumptions as to
documents. The presumptions established in these sections are designed toease
the burden of proof on parties in legal proceedings. This essay seeks to
explore these presumptions and their significance in the Indian legal system.
Section 79: Assumption as to
Genuineness of Documents: “Sec 79 of the Indian Evidence Act” provides that
every document, which purports to be executed or attested, is supposed to be
genuine except the conflicting is shown. This presumption is based on the
principle that each document is acquitted until established guilty. It applies
to all documents, whether public or private, and whether executed or attested
in India or outside India. This presumption as to the genuineness of documents
is a crucial aspect of the Indian legal system. It ensures that parties do not
have to prove the authenticity of documents in every case. Without this
presumption, the burden of proof would be significantly higher, and the
administration of justice would be slower and more expensive.
Section 80: Assumption as to the Date
of a Document: “Sec 80 of the Indian Evidence Act” contracts with the
assumption as to the date of a document. The unit provides that every file,
which purports to be dated, is presumed to have been executed on the date
mentioned in the file except the conflicting is demonstrated. This presumption
applies to all documents, whether public or private, and whether executed or
attested in India or outside India. This presumption as to the date of a
document is significant because it reduces the burden of proof on parties. It
ensures that parties do not have to prove the date of a document in every case.
This presumption makes it easier for parties to establish the facts they need
to prove their case.
Section 81: Presumption as to the
Place of Execution of a Document: “Sec 81 of the Indian Evidence Act” contracts
with the assumption as to the place of execution of a document. The sec
provides that every document, which purports to be executed outside India, is
presumed to have been executed in harmony with the rule of that nation, unless
the contrary isproved. This presumption is based on the principle that a
document executed outside India is subject to the laws of the country where it
was executed.
Section 82: Assumption as to the
Stamp of a Document: “Sec 82 of the Indian Evidence Act” contracts with the
assumption as to the stamp of a document. The segment provides that every
document which purports to be stamped, is supposed to have been accordingly
printed, if the contrary is proved. This presumption is based on the principle
that a document is presumed to have been stamped, and the “burden of proof lies
on the party who asserts that it is not stamped”. This assumption as to the
“stamp of a document” is significant because it ensures that parties do not
have to prove that a document is duly stamped in every case. This reduces the
burden of proof on parties and makes it easier for them to establish the facts
they need to prove their case.
Section 83: Assumption as to the File
Allowable in Court deprived of Production of the Original: Section 83 of the
IEA deals with the presumption as to the document admissiblein court without
production of the original. The section provides that every document, which
purports to be a certified copy of a document, is presumed to be.
Sec 111A: Presumption as to certain offences
“Sec 111A of the IEA” deals with the
assumption as to firm crimes. This sec provides that if a being is found in
ownership of any “narcotic drug or psychotropic substance”, in a quantity
exceeding the specified limit, then the “burden of proof” transfers to
thesuspect to demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the presence of such
drugs or substances.
Significance of Section 111A: Section
111A is a significant provision in the Indian legal system as it changes the
burden of proof to the suspect in cases where he is found in possession of
“narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances”. This provision is based on the
principle that a person who is in possession of a large quantity of such drugs
or substances is likely to be involved in their trafficking or sale. The
presumption created by Section 111A reduces the burden of proof on the trial.
In cases where accused is found in ownership of a large quantityof narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances, the prosecution does not have to demonstrate
that the suspect had information of the presence of the substance. The burden
of proof changes to the suspects, who has to prove that he had no information
of the presence of the matter.
This provision is significant because
it helps in curbing the trafficking and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. The provision acts as a deterrent to those who may be involved in
such activities. It also makes it easier for law enforcement agencies to
prosecute such cases.
Criticism of Section 111A: Despite
its significance, Section 111A has also been subject to criticism. One of the
criticisms of this provision is that it violates the principle of assumption of
blamelessness. The assumption of guiltlessness is a important belief of
criminal law. It delivers that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
However, Section 111A creates a presumption of guilt, which is contrary to the
code of belief of blamelessness.
Sec 113A: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
“Sec 113A of the IEA” contracts with
the assumption as to “abetment of suicide by a married woman”. This section
provides that if a wedded lady obligates suicide within seven years of her
wedding and there is evidence to suggest that her husband or his relatives
subjected her to unkindness, then the burden of proof changes to the accused to
prove that he had no role in the suicide. This essay seeks to explore the
significance of this presumptionin the Indian legal system.
Sec 113A: Presumption as to abetment
of suicide by a wedded lady: “Sec113A of the IEA” was introduced by the
“Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983”. The section applies to cases where
a wedded female pledges suicide within seven years of her wedding and there is
evidence to suggest that her husband or his families subjected her to
brutality. The sec provides if a married female commits suicide within seven
years of herwedding and there is evidence to suggest that her husband or his
relations exposed her to unkindness, then the court may presume that the
suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives. The “burden of proof” then
moves to the accused to prove that he had no role in the suicide.
Significance of Section 113A: Section
113A is a significant provision in the Indian legal system as it provides
protection to married women who may be exposed to cruelty by their husbands or
his families. The presumption created by Section 113A is based on the principle
that a person who subjects a woman to cruelty may be held responsible for her
suicide. The provision of this section reduces the “burden of proof on the
prosecution”. In cases where a married woman obligates suicide within seven
years of her marriage and there is evidence to suggest that she was subjected
to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, the prosecution does not have to
prove that the accused had a direct role in the suicide. The “burden of proof”
moves to the suspect, who has to demonstrate that he had no role in the
suicide.
Criticism of Section 113A: Despite
its significance, Section 113A has also been subject to criticism. One of the
criticisms of this provision is that it violates the principle of assumption of
guiltlessness. The assumption of blamelessness is a important code of criminal
law. It delivers that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However,
Section 113A creates a presumption of guilt, which is contrary to the belief of
belief of blamelessness.
Sec 113B: Presumption as to dory death
Dowry is a social evil that has
plagued Indian society for centuries. The practice of dowry has led to the
oppression and victimization of women. The Indian legal system has recognized
this issue and has enacted several provisions to curb this practice. One such
provision is Sec 113B of the “IEA”, which contracts with the assumption as to
dowry death. Thisessay seeks to explore the significance of this provision in
the Indian legal system.
“Section 113B: Presumption as to
dowry death: Sec 113B of the IEA” wasintroduced by the “Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act, 1983”. This section provides for aassumption as to wedding gift
demise. The section smears to cases where the death of a womanhas happened
within seven years of her wedding and there is evidence to suggest that she was
exposed to unkindness or aggravation by her husband or his relations for dowry.
The section provides that if the
prosecution is able to prove that the woman was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by her partner or his families for dowry, then the court shall
presumed that the death was a dowry death. The burden of proof then moves to
the accused to demonstrate that he had no role in the death.
Significance of Sec113B: Section 113B
is a significant provision in the Indian legal systemas it provides protection
to women who may be victims of dowry harassment. The presumption created by
Section 113B is based on the principle that a person who subjects a woman to
cruelty or harassment for dowry may be held responsible for her death.
Criticism of Section 113B: Despite
its significance, Section 113B has also been subject to criticism. One of the
criticisms of this provision is that it violates the principle of assumption of
innocence. The assumption of innocence is a important attitude of criminal law.
It delivers that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, Section
113B creates a presumption of guilt, which is contrary to the code of
assumption of innocence.
Sec 114: Court may presume existence of certain facts
Indian Evidence Act, 1872” contains
several provisions that deal with the admissibility of evidence in courts of
law. One such provision is Section 114, which deals with the court's influence
to presume the existence of certain facts. This provision plays an significant
part in determining the outcome of a case as it permits the court to draw
implications from the evidence presented before it. This essay seeks to explore
the significance of Section 114 in the Indian legal system.
Sec114: Court may believe the being
of some facts: “Sec 114 of the IEA” provides that the court of law may assume
the being of certain facts. The section is alienated into two parts - the first
part deals with the general power of the court to presume theexistence of
certain proofs, while the second part deals with the specific instances where
the court may assume the existence of certain facts.
The general power of thhe court to
assume the being of certain facts is based on the principle that the court is
permitted to assume the being of facts that are likely to have occurred based
on the evidence presented before it. The court is also permitted to draw
implications from the evidence presented before it and to assume the being of
facts that are necessary to support such inferences.
The second part of Section 114 deals
with specific instances where the court may assume the being of certain facts.
These instances are based on common sense and the experience of human affairs.
For example, the court may presume that a being who is exposed to have been in
ownership of pinched belongings is the thief unless he can provide a reasonable
explanation for his possession of the goods.
Significance of Section 114: Section
114 is a significant provision in the Indian legal system as it lets the court
to draw implications from the evidence presented before it. The provision of
this sec reduces the burden of proof on the prosecution. In cases where there
is a lack of direct evidence, the court may rely on circumstantial evidence and
presume the existence of certain facts.
Sec 114 A: Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions
for rape
The crime of rape is a heinous
offence that is considered one of the most serious crimes against a person's
dignity and autonomy. “Section 114A of the IEA, 1872”, contracts withthe
assumption as to the nonappearance of consensus in sure trials for rape. In
this essay, we willdiscuss the significance of Section 114A, its scope, and its
practical applications.
This provision has been introduced to
address the difficulties that victims of rape face in proving lack of
consensus. It is grounded on the code that in cases of rape, the victim is
often in a vulnerable position, and it is difficult for her to resist or give
her consent to the sexual act. The presumption under Section 114A shifts the
“burden of proof on the accused to prove that there was consent from the
victim”.
Scope of Section 114A: Section 114A
applies only in cases of rape and does not apply to cases of consensual sexual
intercourse. The presumption under this provision applies only in cases where
sensual contact is demonstrated, and the question is whether the sexual
intercourse was without the consensus of the woman assumed to have been raped.
The presumption does not apply to cases where the victim has given her consent
to sexual intercourse.
The burden of proof lies on the
suspect to prove that there was consensus from the victim. The prosecution does
not have to prove that the victim did not give her consent. The court is
required to presume that the victim did not give her consent, and it is up to
the accused to rebut this presumption.
Practical applications of Section
114A: Section 114A has been applied in various cases by the courts in India. In
a recent case, the Supreme Court of India relied on Section 114A to convict a
man of raping a minor. The court held that the prosecution had proved sexual
intercourse, and the burden of proving consent lay on the suspect. The accused
failed to prove that there was consent from the victim, and the court convicted
him of rape.
In another case, the court relied on
Section 114A to convict a man of raping a woman who was mentally challenged.
The court held that the prosecution had proved sexual intercourse, and the
burden of proving consent lay on the suspect. The accused failed to prove that
there was consent from the victim, and the court convicted him of rape.
CONCLUSION
The legislative framework on the
relevance of assumption in the “law of evidence” is essential in guiding the
use and application of presumptions in the legal system. While the legislative
framework provides clarity and certainty, it can also create rigid and
inflexible presumptions that do not take into account the unique circumstances
of a case. Additionally, the legislative framework can create presumptions that
are difficult to disprove, leading to a burden on the party without the benefit
of the presumption. As such, there is a need to balance the advantages of the
legislative framework with the need to ensure that it does not lead to
injustice or unfair outcomes.
Article Information
RELEVANCE OF PRESUMPTION IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Authors: ZOCHHUANMAWII
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/14
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.