Burden Of Proof In Criminal Trials
What is Burden of Proof?
Burden of Proof means the duty cast upon a party to prove or establish the truth of facts or allegations in a case.
In criminal law, it generally lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty (Presumption of Innocence).
Types of Burden
Legal Burden (Onus Probandi):
The burden of proving a fact rests on the party who asserts it. Usually, the prosecution has this burden in criminal cases.
Evidential Burden (Onus Probandi Evideci):
The burden to produce evidence to bring an issue before the court. It may shift between parties during the trial.
Sections under Indian Evidence Act related to Burden of Proof:
Section 101: Burden of Proof generally lies on the person who asserts the fact.
Section 102: Burden of proof as to particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence.
Section 103: When the burden of proof lies on any party, it includes the burden of proving the existence of circumstances.
Section 104: Burden of proof as to particular defenses lies on accused.
Section 105 (of the Indian Evidence Act and incorporated in the Indian Penal Code): Burden on accused to prove exceptions (e.g., self-defense).
Key Case Laws Explaining Burden of Proof
1. State of UP v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 1 SCC 558
Facts:
The accused was charged with murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that in criminal trials, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove innocence but may be required to prove specific defenses if they arise.
Significance:
This case reiterates the foundational principle that the prosecution must establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is presumed innocent.
2. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1
Facts:
Kasab was charged with terrorism and multiple counts of murder related to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Held:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution carries the legal burden of proving all elements of the offense. However, where specific defenses (e.g., alibi, insanity) are raised, the burden to prove those lies on the accused.
Significance:
The case clarifies that while the prosecution’s burden is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused has a burden to prove specific defenses once raised.
3. Nathu Ram v. State of Maharashtra (1952) AIR 15
Facts:
The accused was charged with possession of stolen property.
Held:
The Court observed that once the prosecution proves the accused was in possession of stolen goods, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lawful possession.
Significance:
This illustrates the shifting burden of proof in criminal trials once a prima facie case is established by the prosecution.
4. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) AIR 185
Facts:
The accused challenged his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proof.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion is not enough to convict.
Significance:
This case affirms the principle that the standard of proof is high in criminal trials and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
5. Ramchandra S. Sable v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 1 SCC 774
Facts:
Accused was charged with possession of illegal liquor.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that in cases involving exceptions or special defenses (such as lawful possession), the burden of proving such exceptions lies on the accused.
Significance:
This case clarifies that the burden of proof can shift depending on the nature of the defense raised.
Summary of Burden of Proof in Criminal Trials
| Aspect | Who Bears Burden? |
|---|---|
| Prove guilt of accused | Prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt) |
| Prove specific defenses (alibi, insanity, lawful possession) | Accused (on balance of probabilities) |
| Raise reasonable doubt | Accused (by evidence or facts) |
| Prove fact in issue | Party asserting the fact |
Final Important Notes:
The standard of proof for prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt (very high standard).
The accused can remain silent and is not required to prove innocence.
When the accused raises a defense, the burden shifts to prove that defense, but only on a preponderance of probabilities (balance of probabilities), which is a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments