EVIDENCE PROJECT

Submitted to
Ms. Harsha Chaudhary

Submitted by
Alan C George
Roll No. – A3256117268
LL.B (Semester- IV)
Section: D
Batch: 2017-2020

Of Amity Law School,

Amity University, Noida
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who

supported me throughout the course of this project. I am thankful for
their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and friendly
advice during the project work. I am sincerely grateful to them for
sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a number of issues
related to the project.

I express my warm thanks to Ms. Harsha Chaudhary for her support

and guidance at Amity University, Noida.

I would also like to thank my coordinator and to all the people who
provided me with the facilities being required and conductive
conditions for my project.

Thank you
BURDEN OF PROOF

The phrase burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party who initiates a legal action (the
“plaintiff”) to prove his or her claims. If that party cannot prove sufficiently that the other
party has committed a wrong, whether civil or criminal, he loses. The level or certainty to
which the plaintiff must prove his case depends on the type of case. To explore this concept,
consider the following burden of proof definition.

What is Burden of Proof

In the U.S. legal system, a person accused of a crime is, by law, considered innocent until
proven guilty. In other words, it is assumed that he is innocent, and it is the
prosecutor’s responsibility to prove he committed the crime. This benefit of assumption is
extended to civil lawsuits as well. When a person files a civil lawsuit, claiming the other
party did something wrong that somehow harmed him, he is required to bring enough
evidence to convince the judge or jury. The other party does not have to provide evidence
that he didn’t do it, though he can submit evidence that contradicts the plaintiff’s evidence.
This requirement that the party bringing a legal action prove his case is referred to as
the burden of proof. In a criminal case, burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who must
prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime for which he is
charged. This means there is zero doubt that the plaintiff did it. In a civil case, the standard of
proof is much lower, with the plaintiff being required only to prove that it is more likely than
not that the defendant cause his damages.

Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit

When an individual file a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof rests on his
shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity to tell their side of the
story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly every case would end in a “he said /
she said” situation. The party who filed the lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,”
must prove that the things alleged in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the
“defendant,” or the “respondent,” caused harm or damages.
The standard to which the plaintiff must prove his case in a civil lawsuit is quite different
from the standard of proof required in a criminal case. In a civil case, it need only be proven
by a preponderance of evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the
defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s damages. There are some types of civil cases that
are more serious. These cases must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which
means that the evidence presented against the defendant must have a high probability of
being true.
For example:

Sarah’s gold necklace disappeared out of her jewellery box, and she suspects her roommate
took it. When the roommate, Nora, denies having taken it, then shows up with a new tablet
that she couldn’t afford a couple of weeks before, Sarah demands payment for her missing
necklace. She files a civil lawsuit against Nora, asking for $750 as reimbursement for the
stolen item.

During the trial at small claims court, Sarah cannot provide concrete proof that it was Nora
who took her necklace. In fact, Nora tells the judge that there were other people in and out of
the apartment the day it went missing. Sarah makes the argument that the necklace was inside
her jewellery box, in her locked bedroom, and that Nora was the only person besides herself
who had a key to the bedroom. In this example of burden of proof requirement, Sarah
convinced the judge that it was more likely than not that Nora took the necklace. She
awarded Sarah the value of the necklace.

Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case

In a criminal case, the accused person is by law assumed innocent until the prosecution
proves that he is guilty. The burden of proof in a criminal case rests on the prosecution, with
no requirement that the defendant prove that he is innocent. The standard to which the
prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt is much higher than in a civil case, as the
defendant’s freedom is often at risk. In a criminal matter, the prosecution must prove, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did the deed.

There are a few circumstances in which a defendant may want to take action in proving his
innocence. If the defendant wishes, for instance, to make a claim that he is not guilty by
reason of insanity, the burden of proving that he was insane at the time of the crime, rests on
the defendant. Claims of duress or self-defence also require the defendant to prove the
circumstances.

For example:

A few weeks ago, 19-year old Samuel noticed someone following his 16-year old sister
around, after school, in the morning, and even at the mall. His sister was scared, so Samuel
started walking her to and from school, and other places she needed to go. A few days later
the man approached Samuel when he was alone, and said he wanted Samuel to break into his
Uncle’s home and steal some valuable items. When Samuel made it clear he thought the man
had lost his mind, the man threatened Samuel’s sister, saying he knows where she lives and
goes to school, and all the places she hangs out, implying she would be harmed if he didn’t
cooperate.

Afraid for his sister’s safety, Samuel let himself in to his Uncle’s house while he was at work.
He grabbed the items the man demanded and left. Eventually Samuel was arrested and
charged with breaking and entering, and burglary. Samuel pled not guilty, and when the case
went to trial, it was the prosecutor’s job to prove that Samuel, without a doubt, committed the
crime. After the prosecutor showed some weighty evidence and testimony, Samuel’s attorney
began painting a picture of Samuel’s very real fear for his sister’s safety. In this example of
burden of proof, Samuel is claiming that, while he did steal the items from his Uncle’s home,
he did it under duress.

India: Burden of Proof Under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The normal law relating to the Burden of Proof and its onus is given under the provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on
the person making any claim or asserting any fact. Reference should be made to the following
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with some illustrations to understand the
proposition.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 101 - Burden of proof

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof
lies on that person.

Illustrations

(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B
has committed.

A must prove that B has committed the crime.

(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession
of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true.

A must prove the existence of those facts.

Section 102 - On whom burden of proof lies

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence
at all were given on either side.

Illustrations

(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by
the will of C, B's father.

If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession.
Therefore the burden of proof is on A.

(b) A sues B for money due on a bond.

The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A
denies.

If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed, and
the fraud is not proved.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.

Section 103 - Burden of proof as to fact

The burden of proof as to any fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its
existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any person.

Illustration

1 [(a) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C.
A must prove the admission.

B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove
it.

Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him.

Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and
circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he
had a ticket is on him