Deergh Uppal
The evidence is required by the courts in order to render a decision on the facts of any case, and the burden of proof falls on the party that provides the evidence. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enumerates the law relating to the burden of proof and onus of proof, and its associated provisions are covered under Sections 101 to 114 of the act’s Chapter VII. The question of who bears the burden of proof and who bears the onus of proof may now?
What is Onus of Proof?
The onus of proof is not specified anywhere in the Evidence Act, but clauses relating to it are included in the Act and several court decisions. Furthermore, there is a common presumption of criminal law that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the standard of evidence in the court; but, where the accused is called upon to prove the burden, this is referred to as the onus of proof being on the accused to prove his case under an exception.
The expression “Onus of Proof” refers to the responsibility to provide real facts that can be shifted from one party to another at any time during the evolution of evidence. In the case of Jarnail Sen v. State of Punjab, the prosecution cannot rely on the facts presented by the defendants in favour of their defence if the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence to discharge the responsibility.
If someone argues that a fact exists, the burden of proof falls on that party. Since it is unclear who bears the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding, Section 102 of the Evidence Act is straightforward on this point, stating that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding falls on the person who would lose if no evidence was presented on either side.
For example, A sues B for the property that B owns and that, according to A, was left to A by C, B’s father, in his will. B will be able to have his custody if no proof was shown by either side. As a result, A bears the presumption of evidence.
What is Burden of Proof?
The Burden of Evidence is a legal term that refers to the need to justify one’s claim. The Evidence Act, on the other hand, makes no mention of it. The prosecutor must prove the crime committed by an accused, according to the basic theory of criminal law. Furthermore, the duty of evidence is the requirement to prove a point in a case in a strict way.
“Whoever wishes any Court to make judgement as to any legal right or responsibility based on the nature of facts which he claims, shall show that such facts exist,” according to section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act as “Whoever wants a court to rule on a civil right or responsibility based on the nature of evidence he claims must prove that facts exist,” as the law states. When an individual is required to prove the existence of a truth, this is referred to as the burden of proof.”
This simply means that the burden of evidence is on the party to prove the argument by establishing the facts in question or applicable facts in the case to the necessary degree of certainty. For example, in a robbery case, the defence can claim that all of the necessary requirements for a theft have been met.
Both of these conditions are facts in dispute, and there is a duty to justify their existence, which is known as the presumption of evidence. Furthermore, there are two concepts of Burden of Proof: the first is Onus Probandi, which means burden of proof, and the second is Factum probans, which means proving a fact.
Difference between Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof
The one who has to prove a truth bears the burden of evidence, which stays constant and never changes, while onus shifts from one person to another. , The Supreme Court held in Addagada Ragavamma & Anr v. Addagada Chenchaamma & Anr that there is an important difference between duty of proof and onus of proof: the first is the burden to prove the main argument of the party seeking court action, while the second is the burden to provide real proofs.
It was noted in the case of Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh that there is a difference between a burden of evidence and an onus of proof. Onus probandi grants the right to start. It is crucial in the early stages of a situation. The argument of who bears the burden of evidence carries more weight when the question is who can go first.
Test of Probability
The burden of proof differs from the onus of proof in that the burden of proof is placed on the individual who would prove the fact, which never shifts. The onus of proof shifts. In the assessment of proof, such a shifting of onus is a continuous operation.
Order 13, Rule 4 CPC states that Any document accepted in evidence in any suit must be endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, with the Judge’s signature or initials constituting inclusion of the document in evidence. Before any endorsement, an appeal to the document’s admissibility must be presented, and the Court must shape and express an opinion on the matter of admissibility, on which opinion the document would be endorsed as accepted or not admitted in evidence.
Objections to the admissibility of documents in evidence can be divided into two categories: (i) objections that the document sought to be proven is inadmissible in evidence; and ( ii) objections that do not challenge the document’s admissibility in evidence but are aimed at the mode of proof, claiming it to be irregular or inadequate. In the first instance, simply because a text is labelled as a “exhibit,” an exception to its admissibility is not barred and can be submitted at any time, even through an appeal or revision.
In the later case, the objection should be posed before the evidence is presented, because after the document has been accepted in evidence and identified as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the method used to prove the document is improper cannot be raised at some point after the document has been marked as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a fair-play concept. The key question is whether an objection, if raised at the right time, would have allowed the party presenting the facts to correct the flaw and use a more regular mode of proof.
The anvil for checking “proved,” “disproved,” and “not proved,” as described in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is the same whether the case is civil or criminal. What makes the difference is how the outcome is evaluated based on the rule’s applicability.
Furthermore, in Anil Rishi (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:
“There is a contrast between the burden of proof and the onus of proof. Onus probandi grants the right to start. It is crucial in the early stages of a situation. The argument of who bears the onus of proof carries more weight when the question is who can go first. (Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to denote the responsibility of presenting evidence in favour of a hypothesis at the outset or later; (ii) to denote the responsibility of proving a proposition against any counter-evidence; and (iii) to denote an indiscriminate usage in which it can imply one or all of the above.”
Conclusion
The term burden of proof has two different meanings: one is the burden of proof to establish a case, and the other is the burden to adduce evidence, also known as the onus of proof. Therefore, the onus is nothing more than one part of the Burden of Proof that is unstable and has a tendency to shift. Therefore, the burden of proof is not the same in civil and criminal cases, and it is dealt with differently in both.
