Tiêu đề Laws-of-Evidence.ppt ✅

LAWS OF EVIDENCE BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIVE PROOF In any kind of legal proceeding, the question pertaining to proving of a fact (by both the parties) is answered with another question- on which party does the burden of proof actually lie? The court does not expect proof of self-evident facts and neither are all cases simple enough to demand so and therefore the Court holds a ‘presumption’ of continuity of certain implied facts until anything contrary is brought to the Court’s attention. Therefore, the burden of proof and presumptions go hand in hand and both need to be understood briefly. Chapter VII of
Part III of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the provisions of the party does burden of proofs and presumption. Presumptions generally refer to a process of giving a permit to a few facts on the basis of possibility (when such possibility has comparatively a greater substantiate value than general facts). Similarly, the concept of presumptions in law means inferences/ascertained facts which are concluded by the authority of Court in regards to the existence of certain facts already laid out in the matter. Generally, consequences of certain acts lead to the drawing of inferences, these can either be affirmative or negative. They are ruled out by using the
mechanism of the most probable reasoning of such circumstances. Section-114 of the Indian Evidence Act especially deals with the provisions that ‘the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of • natural events, • human conduct, and • public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case’.
Burden of Proof Let’s briefly understand what the concept of burden of proof to understand presumptions better. Facts can be portrayed in the Court of Law subject to parties affirming it or denying it. Section-101 of Evidence Act if a party asserts and affirms to a particular fact, the burden of proof automatically lies on it and the other party is supposed to counter it. Since the Courts give judgement on the basis of truthful value of affirmative/ otherwise facts, it is crucial that the same are accurately proved. Also, now that is is more convenient and crucial for the party affirming a face to prove it than the party countering it, the burden of proof also lies on the former. Supreme Court in the