Who Bears the Burden? Clarifying Burden of Proof under Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam, 2023

Read Time:10 Minute, 24 Second

Minchana C A

CHRIST (Deemed to be) University

Introduction

Establishing proof is a vital aspect of all court proceedings. This ensures that no argument is accepted arbitrarily in the court law- Arguments MUST rest on proof, backed by evidence and testimonies. – only then can justice be delivered.

The burden of proof is the responsibility of the parties to provide evidence or facts that support their arguments. This burden is to be borne by the lawyers—providing contentions, disproving arguments, and persuading the court in favour of their client’s case. The new act- Bhartiya Sakhya Adhinyam, 2023, discusses the burden of proof in Sections 104 to 109 of Chapter VII.

Through this article, I wish to throw light on the importance of evidence and how the new Evidence Act- BSA,2023 deals with the burden of proof.

Overview of the Legal Issue

What is the Burden of Proof exactly? It is the legal obligation of a party to support their claims by providing adequate evidence either in the form of verbal testimonies or tangible records.

In India, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, codified rules of evidence, including the burden of proof. With the enactment of the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the law of evidence has been modernized to align with contemporary needs while retaining the essence of the previous Act. Sections 104 to 109 of the BSA deal specifically with the burden of proof and presumptions, forming the backbone of evidentiary principles in Indian courts.

The principle of the Burden of Proof is rooted in the legal maxim Actori incumbit onus probandi, which signifies that it is the claimant or petitioner who bears the responsibility of producing material to substantiate their claim or assertion.

This aspect of law has become relevant once more due to the introduction of the new criminal law- BNS, BNSS, and BSA in 2024. While the fundamentals of both the Evidence Act and the BSA remain the same, the BSA has a more contemporary and modern approach that is more suited for the current generation, for example, evidence in the form of statements sent electronically is admissible in court, and many other such reforms have been introduced to be more aligned with current needs.

Analysis of Relevant Case Law or Legislation

One of the most relevant Landmark cases that established burden of proof in the Indian legal field is Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State of Maharashtra, this case underlined the doctrine of Burden of Proof within India, stating that this burden lies on whoever wants to substantiate a claim, and once this burden is borne by either of the parties, it cannot be switched. If by the end of the trial, the party has not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim, then the power lies with the court to rule against their favour.

Often, the burden of proof is said to lie with the petitioner or appellant; however, in some cases, such as Yamal Manojbhai Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. The accused was given the burden to prove that he was innocent. In often cases, it is the prosecution that has to prove the accused guilt and every accused is considered innocent until proven guilty- this case is an exception to that presumption, wherein the accused is required to prove his innocence in front of the court and this is a special provision under the Section 123 of the Customs Act- when an accused is caught by the authorities in the act of smuggling goods, the burden of proof, which originally vests with the prosecution, is reversed, and the same is transferred from the prosecution to the defence.

In terms of cases of property ownership, the burden is often on the owner of the property to prove their ownership. In the case of Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India (1964), the petitioner contended that certain properties (Items 46–51) were not joint family property, but acquired using funds from their maternal grandmother. In this case, the onus of providing proof was on the claimant- he had to prove properties were purchased with separate funds and not joint family funds. The evidence provided was, however, unsubstantiated and inconsistent, leading to an unfavourable judgement for the petitioner.

The landmark case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal played a very important role in revolutionizing the legal field by allowing the admission of electronic evidence into court proceedings. This case was a turning point in adapting the justice system to the needs and scenarios of the modern world, where technology and digital records have become a central part of daily life. By recognizing electronic forms of proof such as emails, recordings, and digital documents, the court ensured that justice would not be limited by outdated evidentiary rules. At the same time, the judgment did not permit the use of electronic records without conditions. It specifically laid down that any such evidence must be proved in terms of its relevance, authenticity, and reliability by the party seeking to rely on it. This means that while electronic materials are admissible, they must also be shown to be genuine and connected to the facts in question before they can be used to support an argument. In this way, the case not only made electronic evidence admissible but also safeguarded against its misuse, striking a balance between modern technology and the principles of fair trial.

Examination of Legal Principles

Sections 104 through 109 of the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam, 2023, primarily concentrate on the burden of substantiation and its critical part in legal proceedings.

These sections make it explicitly clear that the person making a claim bears the responsibility of furnishing acceptable substantiation and proper validation to support their arguments before the court. According to these legal principles, if an individual asserts the court to accept or believe a particular fact, they need to prove it with suitable substantiation, unless the law expressly provides an exception to this rule. In substance, the responsibility to establish a fact always lies with the person who seeks to rely upon it, especially if one fact is essential to support another. This foundational principle ensures fairness in legal proceedings and guarantees that all claims, arguments, and contentions presented before the court are predicated on solid, empirical validation rather than being arbitrary.

In Criminal cases, if an indicted person seeks to bring any general or special exception handed down under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the court does not automatically accept similar exceptions. rather, it presumes that these exceptions do not live unless the indicted proves them convincingly.

Under Section 109 of the BSA, when a particular fact is exclusively within the knowledge of an individual, that individual alone bears the sole responsibility of producing evidence to establish it.

With these prescribed Sections, the BSA clarifies who is held accountable to provide substantial and relevant proof and present it before the court of law to ensure a smooth and just trial.

Practical Counter accusations and Challenges

Providing adequate and relevant evidence forms a vital component of every legal case. Without sufficient evidence, any claim presented before the court remains unsubstantiated and is unlikely to be taken seriously. Equally important is the awareness of who bears the responsibility to furnish evidence in a case. This determination is critical because the outcome of a case often hinges on whether the party responsible for proving their claim has met this obligation. When the burden of evidence rests on the opposing side, it becomes necessary for us to demonstrate that their evidence is either insufficient, unreliable, or weak. This strategy frequently serves as the foundation for challenging the prosecution’s case.

Even though the prosecution is required to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and may present an extensive array of supporting evidence, the case can still fail if the defence highlights even a minor flaw, inconsistency, or error. Notably, the defence does not need to prove the accused’s innocence; rather, it is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence. In such situations, the benefit of doubt is typically given to the accused, which may ultimately lead to their acquittal.

Evidence also plays a critical role in shaping public perception of justice. Justice must not only be done but also appear to be done fairly and transparently. When relevant data and supporting evidence are properly presented in court, the sequence of events and facts in a case becomes clearer, making the judgment appear both reasonable and lawful to society. This transparency fosters public trust in the judicial system. A judgment that is well-supported by evidence is more likely to be accepted smoothly by the public because it aligns with proven facts and demonstrates that legal decisions are based on objective, verifiable information rather than subjective opinions or conjecture. In this manner, evidence not only determines the outcome of individual cases but also reinforces the credibility and legitimacy of the justice system as a whole.

Some of the primary challenges in applying the burden of evidence arise in criminal cases. One significant challenge occurs when the victim is required to testify directly in front of the accused. While this is generally necessary to establish the facts, it can create considerable emotional and psychological stress for the victim, particularly in cases involving serious crimes. To address such concerns, certain laws provide exceptions in instances of extremely severe offenses, allowing the victim to avoid appearing directly before the accused, thereby safeguarding their mental well-being and emotional health.

Another challenge lies in producing evidence that is both relevant and legally admissible in court. Occasionally, evidence that is crucial to establishing the facts of a case may be excluded if it does not comply with established legal procedures. For instance, a confession made under duress or pressure is generally inadmissible because it lacks voluntariness, which is a necessary condition for evidence to be accepted in court. Similarly, hearsay evidence is usually not allowed, as it does not meet the standard of reliability required in judicial proceedings. These situations highlight the delicate balance the legal system must maintain between achieving justice through valid evidence and preventing misuse of procedural loopholes or the creation of unfair advantage.

Conclusion

The doctrine of burden of substantiation, as outlined in Sections 104 to 109 of the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam, 2023, continues to play a pivotal part in upholding fairness, responsibility, and accountability within the Indian judicial system. These sections emphasize that substantiation forms the veritably foundation of justice, and no claim or argument can be accepted without proper validation. While the general principle dictates that the person making a claim must furnish substantiation, the law also recognizes exceptions for illustration, when the indicted invokes a legal exception or in cases involving smuggling under the Customs Act. Landmark judicial opinions, similar to Narayan Govind Gavate, Kalwa Devadattam, and more lately, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, illustrate how courts have applied and interpreted this principle in different surroundings, including the admissibility and use of electronic substantiation. These cases demonstrate that although the introductory rules of substantiation have remained largely harmonious, their operation must evolve in response to changing circumstances, new technologies, and ultramodern legal challenges. At the same time, practical difficulties—such as protecting victims from trauma during testimony and ensuring that evidence meets both relevance and admissibility standards—continue to test the limits of this principle. Courts are therefore tasked with carefully balancing fairness, procedural requirements, and the factual justice of each case.

Ultimately, the doctrine of the burden of evidence does more than simply determine the winner or loser in a legal dispute; it reinforces public trust in the judicial system. By ensuring that court decisions are based on reliable, verifiable, and well-supported evidence, the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam, 2023, helps maintain the rule of law and strengthens the credibility, integrity, and legitimacy of justice in contemporary India.

Reference