Latest Articles
Back
Presumptions in Evidence Law
When the Court presumes the existence of a fact that is known as a presumption. With the aid of presumption, a party in whose favour a presumption is made gets relieved from the initial burden of proof. The court presumes the existence of the fact in his favour and may act on it unless the contrary is shown. For example, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 provides for a number of presumptions about negotiable instruments. One among them is that every holder is presumed to be a holder for consideration. The effect is that consideration is presumed in his favour and he is relieved of the burden of proving that he gave consideration. Let the other party prove that there was no consideration.
Presumptions are the result of human experience and reason as applied to the course of nature and the ordinary flow of life. If a man and woman are found alone in suspicious circumstances the law presumes that they were not there to say their prayers and the divorce laws would take this as evidence as adultery. Presumptions are the result of legal reasoning, in its application to particular subjects. Presumptions are aids to the reasoning and argumentation, which assume the truth of certain matters for the purpose of some given inquiry. As according to Thaver, “presumptions may be grounded on general experience, or probability of any kind or merely on policy of convenience. “
Presumptions have usually been classified into those of facts and of law and those which are rebuttable and those which are conclusive.
In Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of UP Supreme Court observed that a presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists. It helps to decide the person on whom the burden of proof lies. When presumption is conclusive, it obviates the production of any other evidence. But when it is rebuttable it only points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed the purpose of presumption is over. Rebuttable presumptions can be overthrown by evidence while irrebuttable ones are conclusive. Presumption of law are arbitrary consequences expressely annexed by law to particular facts and they may be conclusive or rebuttable. Presumptions of fact are inferences which which the mind naturally and logically draws from given facts, irrespective of their legal effect.They are always rebuttable in nature.
Evidence law also lays down several such presumptions of fact and of law. Section 113 A stipulates a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman on completion of three conditions given under the section. On their fulfilment, Court presumes that the husband or his relatives abetted her suicide and the burden of proof lies on her husband and his relatives. Section 113 B speaks about presumption as to dowry death. The presumption of dowry death arises from the fact of cruelty and harassment soon before death within 7 years of marriage.
According to Section 114 Court may presume existence of certain facts regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct. For example, law considers an accomplice unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Section 114 A relates to presumption as to consent of the rape victim u/s 376 of IPC. This section was added in consequence to Mathura rape case. Presumptions aid court in giving direction to the case easing the factual defects.
