Proved:
According Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is deemed to be proved when the court, based on the presented evidence, believes in its existence. These are facts that the court accepts as true. For example, in a murder case, if there is a reliable eyewitness who testifies in court that they saw the defendant commit the crime, the fact that the defendant committed the murder can be considered proved.

According to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the term 'proved' refers to the establishment of the truth or existence of a fact or proposition through admissible evidence presented in court. As defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is considered 'proved' when it has been demonstrated to exist by the evidence presented, whether through testimony, documentation, or witness examination.

For example, in a criminal trial, if a witness testifies to seeing the accused at the scene of the crime and this testimony is supported by other evidence such as CCTV footage or forensic analysis, it proves the presence of the accused at the crime scene. Similarly, in a civil dispute regarding property ownership, if the plaintiff presents legitimate documentary evidence like land records or deeds, and these documents are deemed relevant and authentic, they can prove the plaintiff's claim to the property.

In summary, when a fact is established in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is accepted by the court as true or existing, contributing to the determination of legal rights and responsibilities.

Disproved:
In Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, disproved refers to the failure to prove the truth or existence of a fact or proposition in a court of law. The burden of proof, as outlined in sections 101 to 104 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, lies on the party making the assertion. For instance, in a criminal case, if the prosecution accuses an individual of theft, they must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are unable to provide sufficient evidence, such as witness testimonies, forensic evidence, or credible documentation, the fact of the accused's guilt remains unproven.

Similarly, in a civil case involving a breach of contract, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who must prove that the defendant failed to fulfil their contractual obligations. This can be done through relevant evidence, such as the contract itself, correspondence between the parties, or witness testimonies. If the plaintiff fails to present convincing evidence, the fact of the breach remains unproven, and the defendant is not held liable.

In essence, disproved indicates the failure to meet the burden of proof, resulting in the inability to establish the asserted fact or proposition.

A fact is said to be disproved when the court determines that the evidence presented does not support its existence, resulting in the court rejecting it as untrue. On the other hand, in a theft case where the defendant has a solid alibi and multiple witnesses confirming their whereabouts at the time of the crime, the fact that the defendant committed the theft can be disproved.

Not Proved:
Not Proved according to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, refers to facts or propositions for which evidence has not been presented or deemed admissible in court to establish their truth or existence. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 outlines that only relevant facts can be proved, implying that facts lacking sufficient evidence or relevance remain unproven.

For example, in a civil case involving a dispute over a contractual agreement, if one party claims that the other breached the contract but fails to produce the contract itself or any supporting documentation, the alleged breach remains unproven due to the lack of relevant evidence.

Similarly, in a criminal trial where the prosecution accuses an individual of a crime but cannot produce credible witnesses or tangible evidence linking the accused to the offence, the alleged guilt of the accused remains unproven, and they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

In essence, when a fact is not proved under the Indian Evidence Act, it signifies the absence of sufficient evidence or relevance to substantiate its truthfulness or existence in a legal proceeding, leaving it without legal recognition or effect.

In cases where the evidence is insufficient to prove or disprove a fact, the court labels it as not proved. These are facts where the evidence is inconclusive or inadequate for a definitive conclusion. Similarly, in a breach of contract case, if the evidence presented by both parties is inconclusive and does not clearly establish whether a breach occurred, the fact of breach may be considered not proved by the court.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565