Download Evidence Law: Burden and Standard of Proof and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Analysis of Burden and Standard of Proof in India.
*Shree Venkateshwara Prasad. G
Abstract:
This Paper endeavors to illuminate the pith of confirmation appears to be either legitimately to mean anything, which serves, promptly or mediately to persuade the psyche of reality or lie of a reality or suggestion. 1 Standard of Proof and burden of Proof is the degree or
dimension of confirmation requested in a particular case, for example, past sensible uncertainty or dominance of likelihood. 2 The probative
impact of proof in common and criminal case isn't in any case, dependably the equivalent and it has been set out that a reality might be viewed as demonstrated for motivation behind common suit, however the proof may not be viewed as adequate for conviction in a criminal case.
Keywords: Evidence, Burden, Standard of Proof, confirmation.
- Objective and Research Question
The researchers believe that the observations of the reading based on the work of renowned author Justice U.L Bhat present a dichotomy. This short essay aims:
- To emphasize the distinctive understanding between Burden
and Standard of Proof.
i. To Define and distinctively segregate based on usage
(^1) Ratanlal and Dhirajla, The Law of Evidence, 21st Edn., Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 2004 Reprinted 2008 [p. 31]. (^2) Black’s Law Dictionary, p.1535.
ii. To understanding the reasoning, rationale behind such
implicative usage.
- Statement of Problem (Research Purpose)
The probative impact of proof is evidential proof in criminal cases
isn't notwithstanding, dependably the equivalent and it has been set out that a reality might be viewed as demonstrated for motivation behind common suit, however the proof may not be viewed as adequate for conviction in a criminal case. As in a common case it might be demonstrated by a negligible dominance of proof, in a criminal cases the arraignment must demonstrate the charge past sensible uncertainty.^3
- Research Methodology
The method deployed in writing this paper is analytical and doctrinal. This essay has been written based on secondary sources collected from research databases.
- Literature Review
This note discusses the recommendations of the Committee on
Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (Malimath Committee, 2003) in respect of burden of proof and standard of proof in criminal law. The note first examines the concepts of burden of proof and standard of proof and the various meanings attached to them. It then argues that the Malimath Committee has misread these various meanings. The second part of this note examines in detail the various standards of proof applicable in criminal law. The note suggests that the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt are not
(^3) Best on Evidence, sec. 95 relied on in R.V.E VENKATACHALA
Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 3548:AIR SCW5316: (2003) 8SCC 752.
respect to what may be his obligation because of his gauge. 7 Evidence of unbending numerical showing is outlandish.^8 The term burden of verification has two unmistakable implications Firstly, lawful burden' 9 which might be utilized to demonstrate the burden of confirmation on the pleadings^10 which implies that it lays on the gathering that
declares the certifiable of an issue. 11 This is^ fixed toward the start of the preliminary and is settled as an issue of law. 12 Besides', evidential burden'^13 that may likewise be utilized in the feeling of citing proof so as to set up an at first sight case whereupon the denounced may be discovered liable in the event that he doesn't delicate proof to make a sensible uncertainty. 14 Be that as it may, this isn't viewed as a right significance of burden of confirmation.^15 The^ impact^ of^ the arraignment not releasing the evidential burden is that the charge is rejected.^16 The two parts of burden of evidence that have been talked (^7) Government of Bombay v. Sakur Samuel, AIR 1947 Bom38: 48 Cr LJ
(^8) F letcher Moulton, L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd ., 1911 (1) KB 988. (^9) P.B. Carter, Cases and Statutes on Evidence 28 (2d ed. 1990). (^10) This has been called the 'probative burden' in DPP v. Morgan,
[1975] 2 All E.R. 347This burden has also been described as 'major burden', 'establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt', 'the risk of non-persuasion' and 'primary burden'. See W.H Jarvis, Primary and Secondary Burdens of Proof in Criminal Law , 5 CRIM. L. Q. 425, 429 (1962) (^11) In order to determine the legal burden of proof, it is important to look at the affirmative in the substance of the issue and not merely the form. See SIR JOHN WÖODROFFE & SYED Amir AU, Law OF Evidence 2164 (16th ed. 1996) (^12) The burden of proof in this sense does not shift during the course of
the trial. See PHIPSON, supra note 13, at 52. The legal burden is on the party who will lose the case if the proposition is not made out when all has been said and done (^13) This burden is also known as 'minor burden', 'adducing evidence at
a trial' 'or secondary burden'. See Jarvis, supra note 17, at 430 (^14) See M.N. HOWARD ET. AL., PHIPSON ON Evidence 58 (14th ed.
1990). (^15) MČKelvey, supra note 14, at 101 (^16) Jarvis, supra note 17, at 432.
about hereinabove have been typified in segments 101 17 and 102 18 of I.E.A individually.
Statutory assumptions, which place an evidential burden on the charged, requiring the blamed to do close to raise a sensible uncertainty, don't rupture the assumption of honesty. The Malimath Committee has properly seen in the Malimath Committee Report that such assumptions don't abuse Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. 19 The Malimath Committee alluded to various Supreme Court choices to help this suggestion.^20 Also, the Malimath Committee is right in so far as it calls attention to that such statutory assumptions are not contrary with Art. 14(2) of the I.CCP.R 21 These assumptions ought to
be considered in a similar light as customary law evidential assumptions. These switch onus conditions are an important piece of safeguarding the parity of reasonableness between the blamed and the examiner in issues for proof. 22
For instance such a turnaround onus statement might be found in areas 20 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 that set out that an individual who is found possessing unlawful medications needs to demonstrate that he has a permit to legitimize such belonging without which the assumption will stand and the denounced might be indicted even without the arraignment demonstrating that the blamed was in illicit belonging.^23 In any case, (^17) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 101: Burden of proof.. (^18) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 102: (^19) Malimath Committee Report, supra note l, 1 5.7. (^20) K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) S.CC (Ch.) 734; Sodhi
Transport Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 2 S.CC 486 (^21) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966,
art. 14(2), 999 U.N.T.S. 171. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.. (^22) R v. DPP, [2000] 1 Cr. App. R 275. (^23) Radhakisan Parashar v. State, 1988 Cri. L. J. 17, 18. However, in the
case of reverse onus clauses, in order for the presumption to come into play, it is important that the prosecution first proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession and that the drug that he was in possession of was an illicit drug, R v. Hunt, [1987] 1 All ER.1.
to demonstrate what it declares and in addition, thinking about the gravity of the results of a criminal preliminary, it is not out of the question to anticipate that the State should demonstrate its dispute past sensible uncertainty. The Malimath Committee Report neglects to consider the way that albeit certain legal choices have veered off from these standards, these are just however distortions to the decide that have been made constitution
