Burden of Proof. there are two types...

Burden of Proof............ Onus Probandi.....

there are two types...

(1) Burden of Establishing case.....

it never shifts.......... it always lies on prosecution ( in criminal) .... on plaintiff (in civil)
..

(2)... Burden of introducing Evidence....

this always shifts,,,,, as per each case circumstances..

........................................................

Burden of introducing Evidence...... in detail..

..

in civil case.......
..

initial burden lies on Plaintiff......

but it shifts towards the defendant under following cases...

(1) order 18,,,... rule.1...... when defendant admits plaintiff facts,,,,,,,,, but contests on some additional facts,,,, or on point of law...

(2) order 37..... summary suits for Negotiable Instruments...

there is presumption,,,,,... that negotiable documents are correct........ so initial burden lies on defendant to rebuttal the presumption..

.......

in criminal cases.....

initial Burden of proof. .... always lies on prosecution

but in following cases it shifts...

(1) when accused takes plea of AliBi..

(2) when accused seeks benefit of general exceptions under ppc....

(3) when accused takes plea of self defense..

(4) when accused makes Retracted confession..


___________________________________________________________________________________

Burden of proof and Onus of proof

Art 117 of the QSO 1984 defines burden of proof as, “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.”

When a person is required to prove the existence or truthfulness of a fact, he is said to have the burden of proving that fact. In a case, many facts are alleged by the parties and they need to be proved by the party alleging the fact before the court so that the court can base its judgment on such facts. The burden of proof is the obligation on a party to establish such facts in issue or relevant facts in a case to the required degree of certainty in order to prove its case. In general, every party has to prove a fact that goes in his favor or against his opponent; this obligation is nothing but burden of proof.

Now the question that arises is that who has the onus of proof

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with “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.”

Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof

There is difference between burden of proof and onus of proof. The ‘Burden of Proof’ is the burden to prove the main contention of party requesting the action of the court, while the ‘Onus of Proof’ is the burden to produce actual evidence. The Burden of Proof is constant and is always upon the claimant but the Onus of Proof shifts to the other party as and when one party successfully produces evidence supporting its case.

The Supreme Court in the case of Addagada Raghavamma & Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma & Anr. (1963) held that there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.