0
0
Minchana C A
Introduction
Presumptions have no place in the court- or so it is believed- while presumptions are said to be a disease that plagues the court of law, both the old Evidence Act as well as the new Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam have prescribed sections on how presumptions can be utilised by legal professionals. Now, to understand legal presumptions, one must primarily understand what a presumption is-
As per the dictionary, presumptions are defined as any fact taken to be true based on probability or the act of believing something to be true without any proof. The second definition is much more apt for law. Presumptions are exceptions within law wherein any fact or statement is presumed to be true based on context or judicial confidence. Evidence and proof play a major part in court trials, and often, with the help of presumptions, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence. They must produce before the court evidence that actively disproves what is believed to be true.
Presumptions can mainly be differentiated into two categories
Presumption of fact- These are inferences drawn from the surroundings that cannot be challenged. Law allows certain presumptions as some facts are true by nature or are likely to be true depending on context and predictability.
Presumption of Law
- Irrebuttable presumptions- these are legal rules that cannot be disproven, no matter what evidence is provided.
- Rebuttal Presumption- These are legal presumptions that can be challenged. These presumptions are not absolute and can be disproven with the help of evidence stating the opposite; however, in the absence of such evidence, the fact is said to be true and conclusive
Overview of the legal issue
Sections 78 to 93 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) talk about various types of presumptions. These are presumptions that the bench is allowed to make, which makes it easier for the counsel to prove and substantiate their claims.
Sections 78–79: Certified Documents and Judicial Records
Section 78 establishes a presumption that any document appearing to be a certificate, certified copy, or other official document, when properly certified by a government officer, is genuine. The only requirement is that the document must be in the form prescribed and executed as the law requires. Section 79 also applies this presumption to judicial proceedings’ records, e.g., statements, depositions, or confessions, which the court may presume to be authentic if they seem to have been conducted in accordance with law.
Sections 80–81: Official Gazette, Newspapers, and Legal Records
Section 80 acknowledges the authenticity of the Official Gazette, whereas Section 81 pertains to newspapers and records required to be maintained legally. The court assumes such records to be genuine if they are brought from rightful custody and are in the prescribed form. Such provisions reduce the evidentiary burden in case of reliance on widely published or statutorily maintained records.
Section 82: Maps and Plans
This section creates a presumption under maps or plans prepared by the authority of the Central or State Government. These maps are presumed to be accurate, but those prepared for special litigation need independent evidence so they are not prejudicial in individual cases.
Section 83: Books by Government Authority
Section 83 allows courts to presume the authenticity of government-authorized books, holding laws, or court judgments of a nation. This makes official collections of statute and case law easily admissible.
Section 84: Power of Attorney
Under Section 84, documents presented as powers of attorney executed and authenticated by a judge, magistrate, or recognized authority, or by a notary, are presumed to be true and genuine.
This provision protects the integrity of delegated authority in transactions.
Sections 85–87: Electronic Records and Signatures
Updating evidentiary law, Section 85 assumes electronic agreements that contain digital or electronic signatures to be genuine. Section 86 further states that secure electronic documents are assumed to be unchanged, and secure electronic signatures are assumed to have been appended with the intent to sign. Section 87 also assumes that information on electronic signature certificates is correct, unless it is otherwise established.
Sections 88–91: Miscellaneous Presumptions
These parts discuss diverse presumptions, such as foreign judicial documents certified copies, public or general interest documents, electronic messages, and what happens upon failure to produce documents after notice. Together, they make judicial reliance on diverse evidence smoother.
Sections 92–93: Special Presumptions for Aged Documents
Lastly, Section 92 makes a presumption of genuineness for documents thirty years or older, while Section 93 works a presumption similar to that on electronic records five years or older. Such presumptions are based on the assumption that old documents are unlikely to be forged.
These were the provisions about evidence presented before the court. The BSA also provided presumptions that are considered by the court based on contextual and probable facts. These presumptions are taken to provide victims the benefit of the doubt, so that the prosecution’s burden of proof is reduced. These presumptions are
Section 114 – Presumption of Good Faith:
If one party is in active confidence in a transaction, then the burden rests on them to establish the transaction to be fair and carried out in good faith. For instance, if an advocate buys property from a client, the advocate has to establish the genuineness of the transaction if challenged.
Section 115 – Presumption in Disturbed Areas:
If the offense with firearms or explosives is committed in an area of disturbance, the court can assume that any individual in the area was party to the commission of the offense.
Section 116 – Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy:
A child born out of a valid marriage is presumed conclusively legitimate, except when there is robust evidence to the contrary. This protects children’s status in society.
Section 117 – Presumption of Abetment of Suicide:
If a woman suicides within seven years of marriage, and it is proved that she was treated with cruelty, the court can infer that the husband or his family members instigated the suicide.
Section 118 – Presumption of Dowry Death:
Where a woman dies under mysterious conditions and proof establishes harassment or cruelty for dowry, the court shall assume it to be a dowry death.
Section 119 – General Presumption:
The court can presume facts likely to have happened, on the basis of natural events, human behavior, and business custom—for instance, recent possession in good faith of stolen property.
Section 120 – Presumption in Rape Cases:
In cases of rape, after establishing sexual intercourse, if the woman asserts she did not consent, the court shall presume lack of consent.
Analysis of Relevant Case Laws
Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand (1999)
This was a case that dealt with the interpretation of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant on the non-execution of the promissory note. While this case was initially dismissed by the lower courts for lack of consideration, the Supreme Court took notice of the case and drew a new interpretation to it, stating that every negotiable instrument is backed by a consideration. This fact must be presumed to be true by the bench, unless the defence presents evidence stating the opposite.
The burden of proof is on the defence; they must justify the reason for the non-execution of the cheque issued. While the burden is initially on the plaintiff to prove the existence of a consideration, this burden shifts to the defence when the consideration is proved.
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
This criminal case deals with the murder of an elderly man in broad daylight, delivering a judgment that perfectly highlights the balance of presumptions of innocence of the accused, as well as effective justice
The case was initially heard in the trial court, and the lower court acquitted the accused of all charges on the grounds of inconsistent witness statements and the presence of reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s arguments. Upon appeal, the high court effectively convicted the accused of their crimes. The Supreme Court took notice of this case and upheld the high court’s conviction. The learned bench stated that no judgment should be overturned unless there is a presence of compelling evidence that so blatantly disproves the previous judgment. The court must critically analyse each piece of evidence and the credibility of the same, ensuring that it is substantial enough to uphold a conviction.
This case set a precedent for the applicability and interpretation of the presumption of innocence; no criminal must be shielded by the technicalities of reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must bear the burden to aptly present evidence before the court to prosecute the criminals.
Examinations of Legal Principles
The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), like its predecessor (the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), recognizes the importance of presumptions in the law of evidence. Presumptions serve as legal shortcuts, allowing courts to accept certain facts as true until proven otherwise. This mechanism reduces the burden of proof, ensures efficiency, and addresses sensitive issues like dowry deaths, rape, and legitimacy.
Some common presumptions within law are “Innocent, until proven guilty”; this is a principle emphasising that a person accused of a crime is not said to be a criminal, the offence must be proven by the prosecution; they must provide sufficient and substantial evidence to back up the offence. If the prosecution fails in doing so, the crime is disproven and the accusation dismissed. However, no criminal must use this aspect to their advantage; the bench must balance the approach of the innocence presumption with delivering effective justice to criminals.
There is an aspect of May and Shall presumptions, as well as conclusive proof.
In May presumptions, the bench can decide whether to presume a fact or not, depending on the context and facts of the case.
Shall Presumption- these are presumptions that the bench must make mandatorily; however, these presumptions can be proven false with evidence.
Conclusive proof- these presumptions cannot be disproven, regardless of the evidence produced before the court contending this.
Modern Applications and Criticisms
The presumptions under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, play a significant role in shaping evidentiary rules and easing the burden of proof in courts. These provisions in the BSA ease the burden on the prosecution to prove a claim, especially in sensitive cases such as rape and dowry death cases. These presumptions also encourage social awareness; these presumptions were not decided but rather were made with the current times. Rape and Dowry death are such common occurrences that the court can presume instances that support the prosecution. This helps spread awareness about the presence of these heinous crimes and also ensures that the criminals responsible for these crimes are effectively punished by law.
One of the critiques is how these presumptions are susceptible to misuse. The “innocent until proven guilty” presumption is often critiqued for how big the burden on the prosecution becomes to prove the offence. These presumptions are often dependent on the bench’s interpretation as well, giving a chance for inconsistencies between the judgments of different benches.
Conclusion
The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, captures the changing face of evidentiary law in India by cogently setting out presumptions which balance judicial efficiency with substantive justice. Presumptions, though at times accused of being a deviation from the rule of direct proof, serve as valuable legal devices in situations where strict adherence to proof may either delay justice or nullify it completely. By reversing the burden of proof in specific instances, like dowry deaths, abetment of suicide, and rape, the law provides protection to sensitive and vulnerable groups as well as deals with crimes of a recurring and sensitive nature. Likewise, presumptions regarding documents, electronic records, and official publications promote procedural ease by avoiding prolonged delays due to disputes regarding the genuineness of frequently used evidence.
Presumptions under the BSA are not, however, without difficulties. Their vulnerability to abuse, reliance on judicial construction, and the thin line between fairness and bias underscore the need for prudent use. Courts must therefore reconcile the usefulness of presumptions with the general principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence. In conclusion, assumptions under BSA 2023 affirm that whereas facts should normally speak for themselves, the law has a justifiable basis to presume certain truths in the interests of ensuring justice, efficiency, and social consciousness in modern society.
References
-
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Sections 78–93, 114–120.
-
Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35.
-
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
-
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal — The Law of Evidence, LexisNexis (Latest Ed.).
-
Singh, Arundhati — “Importance of Burden of Proof in Indian Court of Law,” University of Glasgow (Academic Paper).
