- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts in Issue, May Presume, Not Proved and Proved
Facts in Issue and Issues of Fact
In civil proceedings, the Court frames issues under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These issues arise when one party affirms a material fact and the other party denies it. Such disputed questions requiring adjudication by the Court are known as issues of fact.
Whenever the Court frames an issue of fact, the fact which is asserted by one party and denied by the other becomes a fact in issue under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Therefore, the subject matter of an issue of fact under the CPC becomes a fact in issue under the BSA.
A fact in issue is thus a fact directly connected with the rights, liabilities, or legal claims of the parties and is necessary for the final decision of the case.
Example
Suppose A is accused of murdering B. In such a case, the following may become facts in issue:
Thus, all facts in issue are facts, but all facts are not facts in issue.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – May Presume [Section 2(1)(h)]
Meaning of May Presume
Section 2(1)(h) provides that whenever the Adhiniyam states that the Court “may presume” a fact, the Court has discretion either:
This provision deals with rebuttable presumptions. The presumed fact remains accepted unless the opposite party disproves it by evidence.
Nature of May Presume
The principle of “may presume” is based upon probability, human conduct, and common experience. The Court may infer the existence of certain facts from surrounding circumstances if such inference appears reasonable.
Since the presumption is rebuttable, the opposite party has the opportunity to produce evidence against it.
Thus, “may presume” creates only a permissive presumption and not a compulsory one.
Conclusion
The expression “may presume” grants discretionary authority to the Court to infer the existence of certain facts from surrounding circumstances. Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and operate only until disproved. The Court may either accept the fact as proved or demand further evidence depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Not Proved [Section 2(1)(i)]
Meaning of Not Proved
Section 2(1)(i) states that a fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither proved nor disproved.
This expression represents an intermediate state between proved and disproved. In such situations, the evidence before the Court is insufficient either to establish the existence of the fact or to deny it completely.
A fact which is not proved is not necessarily false. It simply means that the Court is unable to reach a definite conclusion regarding its existence or non-existence.
Nature of Not Proved
The concept of “not proved” reflects uncertainty in judicial determination. When the evidence produced fails to satisfy the Court regarding either probability or improbability, the fact remains not proved.
Therefore, the burden of proof remains unfulfilled.
Conclusion
The expression “not proved” signifies a state where the Court cannot conclusively determine whether a fact exists or does not exist. It is a neutral position between proved and disproved and indicates insufficiency of evidence.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Proved [Section 2(1)(j)]
Meaning of Proved
Section 2(1)(j) states that a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either:
Standard of Proof
The Court determines proof by examining all matters placed before it, including oral evidence, documentary evidence, conduct of parties, surrounding circumstances, and presumptions.
The standard applied is that of a prudent and reasonable person. The Court must feel convinced either about the existence of the fact or about the high probability of its existence.
Proof may be established through:
Conclusion
A fact is said to be proved when the Court, after considering all the materials before it, either believes in its existence or considers it so probable that a prudent person would act upon it. The concept of proof under the BSA is therefore based upon reasonable probability and judicial satisfaction rather than mathematical certainty.
Facts in Issue and Issues of Fact
In civil proceedings, the Court frames issues under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These issues arise when one party affirms a material fact and the other party denies it. Such disputed questions requiring adjudication by the Court are known as issues of fact.
Whenever the Court frames an issue of fact, the fact which is asserted by one party and denied by the other becomes a fact in issue under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Therefore, the subject matter of an issue of fact under the CPC becomes a fact in issue under the BSA.
A fact in issue is thus a fact directly connected with the rights, liabilities, or legal claims of the parties and is necessary for the final decision of the case.
Example
Suppose A is accused of murdering B. In such a case, the following may become facts in issue:
- Whether A caused the death of B.
This relates to a physical fact regarding the act of causing death. - Whether A intended to cause the death of B.
This relates to a psychological fact concerning intention. - Whether A received grave and sudden provocation from B.
- Whether A was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the act and was incapable of understanding the nature of his conduct.
Thus, all facts in issue are facts, but all facts are not facts in issue.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – May Presume [Section 2(1)(h)]
Meaning of May Presume
Section 2(1)(h) provides that whenever the Adhiniyam states that the Court “may presume” a fact, the Court has discretion either:
- to regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved; or
- to call for proof of that fact.
This provision deals with rebuttable presumptions. The presumed fact remains accepted unless the opposite party disproves it by evidence.
Nature of May Presume
The principle of “may presume” is based upon probability, human conduct, and common experience. The Court may infer the existence of certain facts from surrounding circumstances if such inference appears reasonable.
Since the presumption is rebuttable, the opposite party has the opportunity to produce evidence against it.
Thus, “may presume” creates only a permissive presumption and not a compulsory one.
Conclusion
The expression “may presume” grants discretionary authority to the Court to infer the existence of certain facts from surrounding circumstances. Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and operate only until disproved. The Court may either accept the fact as proved or demand further evidence depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Not Proved [Section 2(1)(i)]
Meaning of Not Proved
Section 2(1)(i) states that a fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither proved nor disproved.
This expression represents an intermediate state between proved and disproved. In such situations, the evidence before the Court is insufficient either to establish the existence of the fact or to deny it completely.
A fact which is not proved is not necessarily false. It simply means that the Court is unable to reach a definite conclusion regarding its existence or non-existence.
Nature of Not Proved
The concept of “not proved” reflects uncertainty in judicial determination. When the evidence produced fails to satisfy the Court regarding either probability or improbability, the fact remains not proved.
Therefore, the burden of proof remains unfulfilled.
Conclusion
The expression “not proved” signifies a state where the Court cannot conclusively determine whether a fact exists or does not exist. It is a neutral position between proved and disproved and indicates insufficiency of evidence.
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Proved [Section 2(1)(j)]
Meaning of Proved
Section 2(1)(j) states that a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either:
- believes the fact to exist; or
- considers its existence so probable that a prudent person ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Standard of Proof
The Court determines proof by examining all matters placed before it, including oral evidence, documentary evidence, conduct of parties, surrounding circumstances, and presumptions.
The standard applied is that of a prudent and reasonable person. The Court must feel convinced either about the existence of the fact or about the high probability of its existence.
Proof may be established through:
- Direct evidence; or
- Circumstantial evidence.
Conclusion
A fact is said to be proved when the Court, after considering all the materials before it, either believes in its existence or considers it so probable that a prudent person would act upon it. The concept of proof under the BSA is therefore based upon reasonable probability and judicial satisfaction rather than mathematical certainty.
0 Comments