Introduction
The burden of proof decides which party must prove a fact before a court. It forms the foundation of every civil and criminal proceeding. Indian law follows a structured approach to this principle. The law does not expect courts to guess facts. It expects parties to establish their claims through evidence.
Both the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 regulate this principle. Section 102 of the Evidence Act and Section 105 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam specifically answer one critical question. They determine who carries the burden of proof at the beginning of a case.
Why Is Section 102 of the Evidence Act Important?
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states a simple but powerful rule. The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given by either side. This provision uses a logical test. Courts imagine a situation where no party produces any evidence. The party who would lose in that situation carries the initial burden of proof. This rule prevents frivolous claims. It ensures that allegations do not succeed without proof. The section does not depend on who filed the case. It depends on who asserts a fact that requires proof.
How Does the “No Evidence” Test Work?
The “no evidence” test forms the core of Section 102. Courts ask a hypothetical question. If the plaintiff files a suit for possession of land, the plaintiff must prove ownership. Without evidence, the plaintiff fails. The burden therefore lies on the plaintiff. If a defendant admits execution of a bond but claims fraud, the defendant must prove fraud. Without evidence, the bond stands. The defendant carries the burden.
This test keeps judicial reasoning objective. It removes emotion and focuses on legal consequence.
What Do the Illustrations Under Section 102 Explain?
The illustrations under Section 102 clarify its application. They demonstrate how the burden shifts based on the nature of the claim. When a person claims a legal right, that person must prove it. When a person raises an exception, that person must establish it. These illustrations help courts apply the rule consistently.
They also show that burden of proof does not remain static throughout a trial. It begins with one party but may shift as evidence emerges.
What Is Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces Section 102 of the Evidence Act. The new provision retains the exact language of the old law. It states that the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side. The illustrations remain unchanged. The legal principle remains untouched. The legislature chose continuity over change. This decision ensures that decades of judicial interpretation remain relevant.
Has the Law Changed Under the New Sakshya Adhiniyam?
There is no substantive change between Section 102 of the Evidence Act and Section 105 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam. The provision is reproduced verbatim. Courts will apply the same tests. Lawyers will rely on the same precedents. The transition to the new law does not disturb settled principles.
This continuity ensures legal certainty. It reassures litigants that procedural fairness remains intact under the new framework.
How Does Section 105 BSA Work With Other Burden Provisions?
Section 105 operates alongside Section 104 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, which corresponds to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 104 explains who must prove a fact. Section 105 clarifies who carries that burden at the starting point. Together, these provisions form a coherent structure. They distinguish between legal burden and evidentiary burden. The legal burden remains fixed. The evidentiary burden may shift during trial. This distinction is crucial in both civil and criminal cases.
How Do Courts Apply These Sections in Practice?
Courts consistently use Section 102 and now Section 105 to identify the party responsible for proving a claim. Judges first identify the fact in issue. They then apply the “no evidence” test. Once the initial burden is discharged, the evidentiary burden may shift to the opposite party. However, the legal burden remains constant unless the statute provides otherwise. This approach promotes fairness. It prevents parties from escaping liability by remaining silent.
Does This Principle Apply to Criminal Cases?
Yes. The principle applies to criminal proceedings as well. The prosecution generally carries the burden to prove guilt. If no evidence is produced, the accused is entitled to acquittal. However, when the accused raises a statutory exception or special defence, the burden shifts. The accused must prove that defence. Section 105 BSA works in harmony with such provisions.
Why Is Continuity Between IEA and BSA Significant?
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam aims to modernise evidence law. However, it preserves core principles like burden of proof. By retaining Section 102 as Section 105, Parliament ensured stability. Lawyers, judges, and students can rely on established jurisprudence. This continuity prevents confusion during the transition to the new legal regime.
Conclusion
Litigants must understand that claims require proof. Courts will not presume facts. Lawyers must identify who would fail without evidence and prepare their case accordingly. Section 105 BSA reinforces disciplined litigation. It discourages speculative cases. It strengthens procedural justice. Understanding this provision helps parties assess risk and strategy from the very beginning of a case.
