Presumption Of Facts And Presumption Of Law
Courts use presumptions[1] to form conclusions about the existence of
particular facts. It is not necessary for the party who is considered to be in
the right to rely on presumptive facts to bear the burden of evidence. However,
presumptions are a type of an exceptions to the general rules, which states to
the party that claims to have discovered a given truth has the initial burden of
evidence.
To put it another way, presumptions are inferences made the validity or an untruth of the thing by applying a simple process of likely to be reasoning to what should be taken for granted. It is argued that a presumption operates when certain facts are presumed to exist even when if there is no any complete evidence or proof of their existence. Presumption which is the rule that if only one fact which is known as the main fact is proven, then another known as the supposed fact is accepted as proven if there is no counter proof of the same.
Certain facts are routinely regarded the same way regardless of whether or not they serve as verification of another fact. Where It is an the inference which is drawn from the known and proven facts. Unless it is proven otherwise, judges and juries utilise the law of presumption to deduce a conclusion from a fact or piece of evidence."
"As a general rule, if one fact or set of facts in a case or circumstance is taken as prima facie evidence, and if that evidence supports the other facts relating to that fact, the facts can be taken as proven until contradicted. "Section 114"[2] of the 'Indian Evidence Act' (IEA) deals directly by the all concepts which the court "may presume" that by the existence of the fact'."
To make a presumption of fact, a person must draw conclusions about what has happened based on what they have seen and heard. This is referred to as a material or natural presumption. Presumptions are examples of circumstantial evidence because they are seen to be beneficial Due to the judicial system's incapacity to prove every truth, it will be more difficult to apprehend criminals and those who are in dispute with the law."
Section 113A:
113-A, the presumption that a married lady or women aided and abetted her own suicide:
"Within seven (7) years after the date of the marriage, the court may presume that given the other facts of the case, that a suicide committed by the reason of her own wife's husband means husband or a relative of her husband was abetted her by cruelty or any other reason."
"An abetment of suicide case "may presume," taking into account all other facts of the case, if a court can find that the defendant aided the victim commit suicide, based on the evidence. Section 113-A's[7] use of 'may presume' indicates a Section 4 presumption of fact. There are presumptions of this type that represent "natural inferences which the 'common flow of natural events,' human action, and public and private business suggest to us." The Court has the power to make a presumption or not, based on the facts of the situation."
Essentials of this provision are:
"The accused in Nilakantha Pati v State of Orissa[8] married the victim in April 1982 and received a dowry as a result. However, the accused later chose to purchase a property and requested Rs 70,00 from the victim's parents. She was tortured and died in 1986 after she was unable to acquire the cash. The court concluded that the presumption was rebuttable since the accused backed his assertions with sound reasoning and logic.
The accused was acquitted under Section 113A because his arguments were relevant enough. According to the High Court, the presumption formed in this instance is rebuttable, and such a presumption can be raised if the facts of the case fit the substance or interpretation of the legislative provisions. And in this case, the accused refuted all of the court's presumptions, therefore he was released."
"In Chhagan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the victim was severely beaten by the accused at some point, and the accused explained that the victim was stealing rice, and as a result of this, he had beaten the victim. However, the victim committed suicide only a few days after the incident. The court in this matter acquitted or discharged the accused of the offence mentioned in Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act because the court did not find any evidence subject to cruelty and also mentioned that the essentials of Section 113A are not fulfilled with the facts of the cases, thus in the case of murder legal presumptions of Section 113A are not a part of it. Because the person died for other reasons, and the legal principles of 113A cannot be applied blindly because the nexus must be seen. The benefit of Section 113A's presumption is only available if her husband or any of his relatives has treated the women cruelly in any way."
"In the case of Mangal Ram & Ano v State of Madhya Pradesh[9], the accused's wife had been living with her parents for many years and had not visited her matrimonial home in a long time. She committed suicide one month after returning to her matrimonial home. As a result, the court assumed that the accused was responsible for the lady's death, and the case falls under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, her husband and in-laws demonstrated that the death was not caused by cruel reasons. The court ruled in that case that the presumption was rebuttable and that it could no longer be sustained, so the accused was acquitted."
Presumption Of Law
"Inferences and ideas established or inferred by the law are known as presumptions. Rebuttable type of presumptions of law, and the irrebuttable presumptions of law can be further subdivided."
"Dowry's death is presumed in the same way as presumption of law under Section 113 B[10], A presumption in law,'shall presume', is used under the Section (113B) of the (IEA) Evidence Act to imply that the Court must draw the conclusion and that there is no other option. However, it can be rebutted, though it is not easily repulsed. Refuting or repelling it necessitates evidence that is solid, distinct, convincing, and definitive."
"This Section allows the court to presume that the "husband" and his "relative" were complicit in the suicide and that the wife was subjected to cruelty or torture as a result of the dowry demand. The court explains certain essentials that must be fulfilled before raising any presumption related to dowry death while explaining the concept of "Section 113B"."
"Courts are prohibited from presenting evidence to contradict a claim that has been proclaimed conclusive proof under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act if one fact has been demonstrated or disprove and there is no evidence to disprove it. in an attempt where we can disprove it. As a result, in Section 304-B cases, the burden of convincing was divided among the parties.
"Until the accused provides very strong, cogent, and positive proof in rebuttal that the person has not committed dowry death, the Court must accept the fact that a lady was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry as proved."
In, Shanti v. State of Haryana[11], Parents of the bride were prevented from entering the house by her husband's in-laws and grumbled about the lack of dowry when they met her for the first time. Shortly after the incident, she was found dead. Due to the Supreme Court's approval of the presumption established under Section 113B, one of the in-laws was sentenced to one year in jail for causing dowry death.
Hem Chand v State of Haryana[12] (AIR 1995 SC 120 )
"Where the wife's death was found to be unnatural, i.e. by strangulation, and there was a demand for dowry as well as cruelty on the part of the husband, the presumption under section 113B must be held to be properly drawn. (AIR 1995 SC 120, Hemchand vs. State of Haryana)."
"The Court is bound to accept the fact of dowry death when it is demonstrated that a woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand prior to her death, unless the accused provides very strong, cogent, and positive evidence in rebuttal that the person did not commit dowry death."
According to the Supreme Court in Baijnath & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh[13]:
One of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the Penal Code is that the women must have been subjected to cruelty either by the husband or his relatives for the purpose of dowry soon before her death and bring it as an essential ingredient of Section 304B of IPC the prosecution has to prove the connection of the victim's death with the act of cruelty by the husband Only when the connection is proven beyond a reasonable doubt will the court consider the case under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sections Related To Presumption
"Sections 86-88", "Section 90", "Section 113A", and "Section 113 B" of the (IEA) Indian Evidence Act explicitly refer to Natural Presumptions. Presumptions under this Act include Sections 113A and 113B, which deal with hard-core crimes such as Presumption as to abatement of suicidal thoughts, while Sections 86 and 87 discuss legal documents from another country, certified copies, Among the topics covered in Sections 87 and 88 are presumptions relating to books, maps, and charts, while Section 88 addresses presumptions relating to telegraph communications and Section 90 addresses presumptions relating to papers older than thirty years. Section 113A deals with the presumption that married women are less or likely to commit suicide where court can presume."
Conclusion
In Tukaram v State of Maharashtra[14] , On the basis of the circumstances of Mathura Rape Case, where the Court explained that the basic need and need of the such presumptions while adjudicating the case. Another aspect of Presumptions that the Court noted is that they have a wider scope than just helping an individual in a swift or easy trial. Presumptions which can be help to the Indian judiciary deliver justice quickly and thoroughly to society.
Section, 90, of (IEA) the Evidence Act deals specifically with permissive or the presumption, which is according to the Stephen, who believes presumption which is mandatory, not permissive. Courts have discretion to believe or not believe permissive presumption."
Bibliography:
End-Notes:
To put it another way, presumptions are inferences made the validity or an untruth of the thing by applying a simple process of likely to be reasoning to what should be taken for granted. It is argued that a presumption operates when certain facts are presumed to exist even when if there is no any complete evidence or proof of their existence. Presumption which is the rule that if only one fact which is known as the main fact is proven, then another known as the supposed fact is accepted as proven if there is no counter proof of the same.
Certain facts are routinely regarded the same way regardless of whether or not they serve as verification of another fact. Where It is an the inference which is drawn from the known and proven facts. Unless it is proven otherwise, judges and juries utilise the law of presumption to deduce a conclusion from a fact or piece of evidence."
"As a general rule, if one fact or set of facts in a case or circumstance is taken as prima facie evidence, and if that evidence supports the other facts relating to that fact, the facts can be taken as proven until contradicted. "Section 114"[2] of the 'Indian Evidence Act' (IEA) deals directly by the all concepts which the court "may presume" that by the existence of the fact'."
Kinds Of Presumption
- Rebuttable Presumption
"Presumptions that can be rebutted are known as Rebuttable Presumptions[3] since they are presumptions that can be rebutted. Despite the fact that it is difficult to gauge the magnitude of such these presumptions, their truthfulness may only be assumed until proven otherwise. For an ex. if a man or anybody is in possessions of stolen property, it is evident that they are either a "thief" or a "receiver". That's a classic illustration of rebuttable presumptions.
- Irrebuttable Presumption
"Ir-rebuttable It's impossible to disprove these assumptions with any more evidence or argument. Because of this, the hypothesis described falls under the umbrella or roof of a conclusive hypothesis or presumption, and the falsity of which cannot be proven. Children less than seven years old are regarded to be incompetent criminals."
Section 4
-
May presume:
"Any/certain/few facts may be presumed by the court at its discretion, and the court may either recognises it as proved or a request corroborative proof to affirm or reconfirm the presumption it has made. As long as they are not disapproved, the facts in question can be taken as proven under Section 4, of the (IEA), "Indian Evidence Act". Under Section 4 of this act, the term 'May Presume'[4] refers to presumptions that can be rebutted.."
-
Shall presume:
"Rather of implying a strong claim or desire to establish any fact, "must presume guess" does just that. "Shall Presume," as defined in Section 4, of (IEA) the Indian Evidence Act, means "shall presume" facts or groupings of facts unless they are disproven by the opposing party. The court doesn't have any other discretionary power in where the course of the presumption. A "Shall Presume" is also called as a "Presumption of Law" under Indian Evidence Act Section 4."
-
May presume:
-
Conclusive presumption
"It is not merely logical to presume that a court can assume strong conclusions/proofs, but these presumptions are intended to benefit society as a whole, rather than just the individual.Even if a presumption is challenged with probative evidence, the law has unlimited power and will not admit any proof contradicting the presumption, in which means that the assumption will be upheld. As the strongest presumption, the irrefutable type of presumptions, or Conclusive Presumption, is governed by Evidence Act sections 41, 112, and 113, as well as Indian Penal Code section 82."
Types Of Presumption
Presumptions[5] Which Can Be Classified Into A Certain Types:- Presumptions of fact
- Presumptions of law
- Mixed Presumptions
To make a presumption of fact, a person must draw conclusions about what has happened based on what they have seen and heard. This is referred to as a material or natural presumption. Presumptions are examples of circumstantial evidence because they are seen to be beneficial Due to the judicial system's incapacity to prove every truth, it will be more difficult to apprehend criminals and those who are in dispute with the law."
Section 113A:
113-A, the presumption that a married lady or women aided and abetted her own suicide:
"Within seven (7) years after the date of the marriage, the court may presume that given the other facts of the case, that a suicide committed by the reason of her own wife's husband means husband or a relative of her husband was abetted her by cruelty or any other reason."
"An abetment of suicide case "may presume," taking into account all other facts of the case, if a court can find that the defendant aided the victim commit suicide, based on the evidence. Section 113-A's[7] use of 'may presume' indicates a Section 4 presumption of fact. There are presumptions of this type that represent "natural inferences which the 'common flow of natural events,' human action, and public and private business suggest to us." The Court has the power to make a presumption or not, based on the facts of the situation."
Essentials of this provision are:
- The presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman during seven years of marriage.
- Wife's husband and his family member or relatives has been subjected her to cruelty as per section 498A of IPC
"The accused in Nilakantha Pati v State of Orissa[8] married the victim in April 1982 and received a dowry as a result. However, the accused later chose to purchase a property and requested Rs 70,00 from the victim's parents. She was tortured and died in 1986 after she was unable to acquire the cash. The court concluded that the presumption was rebuttable since the accused backed his assertions with sound reasoning and logic.
The accused was acquitted under Section 113A because his arguments were relevant enough. According to the High Court, the presumption formed in this instance is rebuttable, and such a presumption can be raised if the facts of the case fit the substance or interpretation of the legislative provisions. And in this case, the accused refuted all of the court's presumptions, therefore he was released."
"In Chhagan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the victim was severely beaten by the accused at some point, and the accused explained that the victim was stealing rice, and as a result of this, he had beaten the victim. However, the victim committed suicide only a few days after the incident. The court in this matter acquitted or discharged the accused of the offence mentioned in Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act because the court did not find any evidence subject to cruelty and also mentioned that the essentials of Section 113A are not fulfilled with the facts of the cases, thus in the case of murder legal presumptions of Section 113A are not a part of it. Because the person died for other reasons, and the legal principles of 113A cannot be applied blindly because the nexus must be seen. The benefit of Section 113A's presumption is only available if her husband or any of his relatives has treated the women cruelly in any way."
"In the case of Mangal Ram & Ano v State of Madhya Pradesh[9], the accused's wife had been living with her parents for many years and had not visited her matrimonial home in a long time. She committed suicide one month after returning to her matrimonial home. As a result, the court assumed that the accused was responsible for the lady's death, and the case falls under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, her husband and in-laws demonstrated that the death was not caused by cruel reasons. The court ruled in that case that the presumption was rebuttable and that it could no longer be sustained, so the accused was acquitted."
Presumption Of Law
"Inferences and ideas established or inferred by the law are known as presumptions. Rebuttable type of presumptions of law, and the irrebuttable presumptions of law can be further subdivided."
"Dowry's death is presumed in the same way as presumption of law under Section 113 B[10], A presumption in law,'shall presume', is used under the Section (113B) of the (IEA) Evidence Act to imply that the Court must draw the conclusion and that there is no other option. However, it can be rebutted, though it is not easily repulsed. Refuting or repelling it necessitates evidence that is solid, distinct, convincing, and definitive."
"This Section allows the court to presume that the "husband" and his "relative" were complicit in the suicide and that the wife was subjected to cruelty or torture as a result of the dowry demand. The court explains certain essentials that must be fulfilled before raising any presumption related to dowry death while explaining the concept of "Section 113B"."
"Courts are prohibited from presenting evidence to contradict a claim that has been proclaimed conclusive proof under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act if one fact has been demonstrated or disprove and there is no evidence to disprove it. in an attempt where we can disprove it. As a result, in Section 304-B cases, the burden of convincing was divided among the parties.
"Until the accused provides very strong, cogent, and positive proof in rebuttal that the person has not committed dowry death, the Court must accept the fact that a lady was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry as proved."
In, Shanti v. State of Haryana[11], Parents of the bride were prevented from entering the house by her husband's in-laws and grumbled about the lack of dowry when they met her for the first time. Shortly after the incident, she was found dead. Due to the Supreme Court's approval of the presumption established under Section 113B, one of the in-laws was sentenced to one year in jail for causing dowry death.
Hem Chand v State of Haryana[12] (AIR 1995 SC 120 )
"Where the wife's death was found to be unnatural, i.e. by strangulation, and there was a demand for dowry as well as cruelty on the part of the husband, the presumption under section 113B must be held to be properly drawn. (AIR 1995 SC 120, Hemchand vs. State of Haryana)."
"The Court is bound to accept the fact of dowry death when it is demonstrated that a woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand prior to her death, unless the accused provides very strong, cogent, and positive evidence in rebuttal that the person did not commit dowry death."
According to the Supreme Court in Baijnath & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh[13]:
One of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the Penal Code is that the women must have been subjected to cruelty either by the husband or his relatives for the purpose of dowry soon before her death and bring it as an essential ingredient of Section 304B of IPC the prosecution has to prove the connection of the victim's death with the act of cruelty by the husband Only when the connection is proven beyond a reasonable doubt will the court consider the case under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sections Related To Presumption
"Sections 86-88", "Section 90", "Section 113A", and "Section 113 B" of the (IEA) Indian Evidence Act explicitly refer to Natural Presumptions. Presumptions under this Act include Sections 113A and 113B, which deal with hard-core crimes such as Presumption as to abatement of suicidal thoughts, while Sections 86 and 87 discuss legal documents from another country, certified copies, Among the topics covered in Sections 87 and 88 are presumptions relating to books, maps, and charts, while Section 88 addresses presumptions relating to telegraph communications and Section 90 addresses presumptions relating to papers older than thirty years. Section 113A deals with the presumption that married women are less or likely to commit suicide where court can presume."
Conclusion
In Tukaram v State of Maharashtra[14] , On the basis of the circumstances of Mathura Rape Case, where the Court explained that the basic need and need of the such presumptions while adjudicating the case. Another aspect of Presumptions that the Court noted is that they have a wider scope than just helping an individual in a swift or easy trial. Presumptions which can be help to the Indian judiciary deliver justice quickly and thoroughly to society.
Section, 90, of (IEA) the Evidence Act deals specifically with permissive or the presumption, which is according to the Stephen, who believes presumption which is mandatory, not permissive. Courts have discretion to believe or not believe permissive presumption."
Bibliography:
- Sharma, I. (2021, September 2). Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Case Summary (1979 SC). Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation. Retrieved August 15, 2022, from https://lawplanet.in/tukaram-vs-state-of-maharashtra-case-summary/
- Nilakantha Pati v state of orissa on 24 June 1994 - judgement - lawyerservices. The Tech Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nilakantha-Pati-Versus-State-of-Orissa-1994-06-24
- India, legal S. (n.d.). Presumptions relating to matrimonial offences. Legal Service India. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pre_mat.htm
- D. R. By Rai, D., & here, P. enter your name. (2022, January 28). Presumptions in the indian evidence act. iPleaders. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/
- Admin, & Admin. (2018, May 12). Shanti v. state of Haryana. CrLRR. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from, http://crlreview.in/shanti-v-state-of-haryana/
- https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202005011832589743Dr-Richa-Saxena-Law-of-evidence-III.pdf
- The Indian Evidence ACT (I. of 1872): With an Introduction, Principles of Judicial Evidenceby James Fitzjames Stephen Sir
End-Notes:
- Arora, H. (2020, April 8). Presumption under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. SSRN. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3530459
- Author (2022, January 20). Presumption under the indian evidence act 1872. The Law Communicants. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://thelawcommunicants.com/presumption-under-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/
- Law Corner. (2021, January 19). Difference between rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. Law Corner. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://lawcorner.in/difference-between-rebuttable-and-irrebuttable-presumptions/
- Codingest. (n.d.). What is meant by 'may presume', 'shall presume' and 'conclusive proof'? Sonisvision. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/post/what-is-meant-by-may-presume-shall-presume-and-conclusive-proof
- Classification of presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act 1872. SRD Law Notes. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/03/classification-of-presumptions-under.html?m=1
- Ltd, A. A. (2022, July 27). Presumptions as to indian evidence act documents. Law Teacher. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-act-documents-contract-law-essay.php
- Indian Evidence Act Section 113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women. Latest Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/indian-evidence-act-section-113a-presumption-as-to-abatement-of-suicide-by-a-married-women
- Nilakantha Pati v state of orissa on 24 June 1994 - judgement - lawyerservices. The Tech Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nilakantha-Pati-Versus-State-of-Orissa-1994-06-24
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1357985/
- Section details. India Code. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700§ionId=38924§ionno=113B&orderno=130
- Admin, & Admin. (2018, May 12). Shanti v. state of Haryana. CrLRR. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from http://crlreview.in/shanti-v-state-of-haryana/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/998975/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73277952/
- Sharma, I. (2021, September 2). Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Case Summary (1979 SC). Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation. Retrieved August 15, 2022, from https://lawplanet.in/tukaram-vs-state-of-maharashtra-case-summary/
- Ltd, A. A. (2022, July 27). Presumptions as to indian evidence act documents. Law Teacher. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/presumptions-as-to-indian-evidence-act-documents-contract-law-essay.php
Law Article in India
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments