- Published on
Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof
1. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof refers to the legal responsibility placed upon a party to prove the facts that he asserts in order to obtain a judgment in his favour. It is codified under Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The burden of proof relates to the entire case and not merely to individual facts. It lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were produced by either side. Once fixed, the burden of proof remains constant throughout the proceedings and does not shift during the trial.
The party on whom the burden of proof lies must succeed on the strength of his own evidence and cannot take advantage of weaknesses in the opponent’s case. If he fails to discharge this burden, the suit or proceeding must fail.
2. Onus of Proof
The onus of proof means the obligation to produce evidence in support of a particular fact or issue at a particular stage of the trial. It is codified under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Unlike the burden of proof, the onus of proof is concerned with specific facts or issues rather than the whole case. Initially, the onus lies on the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence were led. However, the onus of proof is not static; it shifts from one party to another during the course of trial depending upon the evidence adduced, admissions made, or presumptions raised.
Once a party discharges the onus by leading sufficient evidence, the onus shifts to the opposite party to rebut or counter that evidence.
3. Distinction between Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof
The burden of proof and onus of proof are closely related but distinct concepts. The burden of proof refers to the duty to establish the whole case, whereas the onus of proof refers to the duty to lead evidence at a particular stage of the proceedings.
The burden of proof is fixed and constant, while the onus of proof is variable and shifting. The burden of proof is a matter of law, whereas the onus of proof is influenced by the state of evidence at different stages of the trial.
4. Judicial View
In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proof remains constant throughout the trial, but the onus of proof may shift from time to time depending upon the evidence adduced by the parties.
Similarly, in Debbarma (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, the Supreme Court emphasized that a plaintiff must prove his title by leading positive evidence and cannot rely merely on the failure of the defendant to prove his case. The onus may shift, but the burden of proof remains on the party asserting the claim.
5. Conclusion
In summary, the burden of proof determines who must ultimately prove the case, while the onus of proof governs the responsibility of producing evidence at different stages of the trial. Both concepts work together to ensure a fair and orderly process of adjudication under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
1. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof refers to the legal responsibility placed upon a party to prove the facts that he asserts in order to obtain a judgment in his favour. It is codified under Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The burden of proof relates to the entire case and not merely to individual facts. It lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were produced by either side. Once fixed, the burden of proof remains constant throughout the proceedings and does not shift during the trial.
The party on whom the burden of proof lies must succeed on the strength of his own evidence and cannot take advantage of weaknesses in the opponent’s case. If he fails to discharge this burden, the suit or proceeding must fail.
2. Onus of Proof
The onus of proof means the obligation to produce evidence in support of a particular fact or issue at a particular stage of the trial. It is codified under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Unlike the burden of proof, the onus of proof is concerned with specific facts or issues rather than the whole case. Initially, the onus lies on the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence were led. However, the onus of proof is not static; it shifts from one party to another during the course of trial depending upon the evidence adduced, admissions made, or presumptions raised.
Once a party discharges the onus by leading sufficient evidence, the onus shifts to the opposite party to rebut or counter that evidence.
3. Distinction between Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof
The burden of proof and onus of proof are closely related but distinct concepts. The burden of proof refers to the duty to establish the whole case, whereas the onus of proof refers to the duty to lead evidence at a particular stage of the proceedings.
The burden of proof is fixed and constant, while the onus of proof is variable and shifting. The burden of proof is a matter of law, whereas the onus of proof is influenced by the state of evidence at different stages of the trial.
4. Judicial View
In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proof remains constant throughout the trial, but the onus of proof may shift from time to time depending upon the evidence adduced by the parties.
Similarly, in Debbarma (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, the Supreme Court emphasized that a plaintiff must prove his title by leading positive evidence and cannot rely merely on the failure of the defendant to prove his case. The onus may shift, but the burden of proof remains on the party asserting the claim.
5. Conclusion
In summary, the burden of proof determines who must ultimately prove the case, while the onus of proof governs the responsibility of producing evidence at different stages of the trial. Both concepts work together to ensure a fair and orderly process of adjudication under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
0 Comments