Introduction
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the foundation of the law on burden of proof. It clearly states that the party who asserts a fact must prove it. Courts do not act on assumptions. They act on evidence. A person who approaches the court for relief must therefore support their claim with proof. This rule applies to every kind of legal proceeding. It applies to both civil and criminal trials. The section fixes responsibility at the very beginning of a case.
How Does Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Reflect The Same Rule
Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 repeats the same principle in the new evidence law. The wording remains unchanged. The intent also remains unchanged. The law continues to insist that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of a fact. The new Act came into force on 1 July 2024. Even after this change, courts follow the same evidentiary logic. This ensures legal continuity and predictability.
Why Is The Burden Of Proof Placed On The Asserting Party
The law places the burden of proof on the asserting party to prevent false or speculative claims. Courts cannot investigate facts on their own. They rely on parties to present evidence. If the law did not impose this duty, litigation would become arbitrary. Every claim would force the opposite party to defend without cause. Section 101 of the IEA and Section 104 of the BSA prevent this misuse. They ensure fairness and discipline in judicial proceedings.
Does This Principle Apply Equally To Civil And Criminal Cases
The principle applies across all types of cases. In civil matters, the plaintiff must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities. In criminal matters, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts from the prosecution regarding the main offence. This rule protects the presumption of innocence. Section 104 of the BSA continues this protection without dilution.
What Is Meant By An Initial And Unshiftable Burden of Proof
The initial burden of proof always lies on the person who approaches the court. This burden does not move unless the law expressly provides otherwise. Even when certain facts are admitted or presumed, the foundational burden remains unchanged. The claimant must first establish a prima facie case. Only after this stage can any evidentiary burden shift to the opposite party.
How Does Section Mapping Show Continuity Between the Two Laws
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam reorganizes the structure of the old Evidence Act. Chapter VII of the IEA covered Sections 101 to 114A. In the BSA, these provisions now appear as Sections 104 to 120. The numbering changes by plus three. The substance does not change. Section 101 becomes Section 104. Section 102 becomes Section 105. The legal meaning remains identical. This structural shift avoids confusion while modernizing the statute.
What Role Does Section 105 of the BSA Play After Section 104
Section 105 of the BSA explains on whom the burden of proof lies at different stages. It complements Section 104. While Section 104 fixes the initial burden, Section 105 clarifies how that burden operates during trial. Courts read these provisions together. They do not treat Section 104 in isolation. This integrated reading preserves the logic of the old Evidence Act.
How Does This Rule Work In Practical Court Situations
In practice, the rule ensures procedural fairness. Suppose a person alleges that another committed murder. The person making the allegation must prove it. The accused does not have to prove innocence at the outset. Only when the prosecution establishes a strong case does the accused need to respond. Even then, the legal burden remains on the prosecution. The defence only carries a limited evidentiary burden in specific situations.
What Happens When Exceptions Or Defences Are Pleaded
When a party relies on an exception, the burden may partially shift. For example, if an accused pleads self defence, the law requires some proof of that plea. Under the BSA, this principle appears in Section 108. However, this does not remove the prosecution’s main burden. It only requires the defence to introduce supporting material. The court still evaluates the case as a whole.
How Does the BSA Modernise Law Without Altering This Principle
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam updates terminology and references. It replaces colonial language. It aligns statutory references with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It also adapts to digital and electronic evidence. Despite these changes, the burden of proof rule remains untouched. This shows legislative intent to preserve core evidentiary values.
Conclusion
Continuity ensures trust in the legal system. Parties know their responsibilities. Judges apply settled principles. The burden of proof remains predictable. Section 104 of the BSA therefore safeguards both efficiency and fairness. It confirms that while laws may evolve, core principles remain constant.
