Landmark Cases on Burden of Proof
1. Woolmington v. DPP (1935) — UK
Key Principle: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The famous “golden thread” ruling: It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Significance: Shifted the burden firmly onto the prosecution; only in limited exceptions does the burden shift to the defense.
2. Shamu v. The State (India, 1991)
Key Principle: On the accused lies the initial burden to raise a plausible defense; however, the ultimate burden of proving guilt remains with the prosecution.
Significance: Clarified the distinction between burden of proof and evidential burden in Indian criminal law.
3. R v. Turner (1975) — UK
Key Principle: The defendant may have a legal burden to prove certain defenses (like insanity or alibi) on the balance of probabilities.
Significance: Shows the difference between legal burden (burden of proof on the balance of probabilities) and evidential burden (burden to raise enough evidence to put the issue before the court).
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (India, 2003)
Key Principle: The burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused, but the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case.
Significance: Reinforces that burden shifts only after prosecution establishes a case.
5. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) — Australia
Key Principle: The standard of proof in civil cases is the balance of probabilities, but the seriousness of the allegation affects how convincing the evidence must be.
Significance: Even in civil cases, more serious allegations require more cogent evidence.
6. Ibrahim v. The State (Pakistan, 2005)
Key Principle: The prosecution must discharge the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Significance: Reinforces the universal principle of presumption of innocence.
Summary Table:
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Woolmington v. DPP (1935) | UK | Prosecution bears burden beyond reasonable doubt |
| Shamu v. The State (1991) | India | Defense must raise plausible defense; burden on prosecution |
| R v. Turner (1975) | UK | Defendant bears legal burden for certain defenses |
| UP v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) | India | Burden of alibi on accused after prosecution’s prima facie case |
| Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) | Australia | Standard of proof depends on seriousness in civil cases |
| Ibrahim v. The State (2005) | Pakistan | Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on prosecution |
RELATED Blog
0 comments