Join our Law Notes WhatsApp Group and stay updated with Legal and Judicial Updates

Burden of proof

From Lawnotes.in
Jump to:navigation, search
HomeBrud.gifEvidence LawBrud.gifBurden of proof

Also called the onus probandi, Burden of proof is the duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove an assertion of fact; it includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion;

  • In the Law of Evidence, the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a lawsuit. The responsibility of proving a point. It deals with which side must establish a point or points
  • The burden of proving the commission of an offence is always on the prosecution (or prosecutors) and that the same never shifts.
  • In civil cases, the burden most often is carried by the plaintiff.
  • According to Income-Tax Act, 1961, the burden of proof about the status of resident or non-resident lies on the assessee only.

Indian Legislation on Burden of Proof

  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872
    • Section 101: Burden of proof
    • Section 102: On whom burden of proof lies
    • Section 103: Burden of proof as to particular fact
    • Section 104: Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible
    • Section 105: Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions
    • Section 106: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge
    • Section 107: Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years
    • Section 108: Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years
    • Section 109: Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent
    • Section 110: Burden of proof as to ownership

Other Legislation on Burden of Proof

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Law

  • Smith Vs United States, 11–8976. Argued November 6, 2012—Decided January 9, 2013
    • A defendant bears the burden of proving a defense of withdrawal
    • Petitioner Smith claimed that conspiracy charges brought against him for his role in an illegal drug business, see 21 U. S. C. §846 and 18 U. S. C. §1962(d), were barred by 18 U. S. C. §3282’s 5-year statute of limitations. The District Court instructed the jury to convict Smith of each conspiracy count if the Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracies existed, that Smith was a member of those conspiracies, and that the conspiracies continued within the applicable statute-of-limitations period. As to the affirmative defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy, the court instructed the jury that once the Government proved that Smith was a member of the conspiracy, Smith had the burden to prove withdrawal outside the statute of limitations by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith was convicted, and the D. C. Circuit affirmed.