In the Indian Evidence Act, certain provisions empower the court to assume specific facts under defined circumstances. These assumptions, referred to as presumptions, play a significant role in judicial proceedings. But what do these presumptions mean, and what relevance do they hold in the Indian Evidence Act? Let’s delve into these concepts to understand their essence and importance.
What are Presumptions?
The Indian Evidence Act does not define the term presumption. However, it has been explained by legal scholars and through judicial interpretation. Sir James Stephen defines presumption as “a rule of law that a court or judge shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or from particular evidence unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved.”
In its literal sense, presumption is a rule of evidence that assumes a fact to be true unless proven otherwise. In the context of the law of evidence, it refers to a legal or factual assumption drawn from the existence of certain facts. Essentially, when a presumption is raised, the court draws an inference from certain established facts, overriding the need for other modes of proof.
Simply put, presumption means accepting something as true without needing further proof at the outset. It is an assumption that the court makes based on established facts. This assumption remains valid unless it is disproved by stronger evidence.
Presumption is a rule that treats an unknown fact as proved upon the proof or admission of certain related facts. It is used to designate an inference—positive or negative—about the existence of a fact. This inference is drawn by court using probable reasoning based on matters of fact that are either judicially noticed, admitted, or established through evidence.
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act incorporates this concept by providing for differ ent types of presumptions, namely, may presume, shall presume, and conclusive proof.
Purpose and Relevance of Presumptions
Presumptions are based on the broad experience of connections between certain facts. They arise from human experience and reasoning applied to the natural course of events and the ordinary flow of life. These inferences, though not explicitly proven, are logical conclusions that a reasonable mind would naturally draw.
For example, if a person is found in possession of stolen goods shortly after a theft, the law may presume that they are the thief unless proven otherwise. Such rules of presumption are grounded in enlightened human knowledge and experience, derived from observing nature, human behavior, and societal interactions.
How do presumptions work?
A key point to understand is that presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act are not evidence themselves. Instead, they act as prima facie proof for the party benefiting from them, relieving that party of the burden of producing initial evidence until the opposing party introduces evidence to rebut the presumption.
Presumptions create a high probability in favor of one party, shifting the initial burden of proof to the opposing party. They hold the field in the absence of contrary evidence but recede when contrary facts emerge.
In Chet Ram v. Manjoor Hasan (1954) it was observed that:
“The question of presumption has to be kept distinct from the question of proof. For the purpose of raising the presumption what one has to see is the state of affairs prevailing on the date on which the presumption is sought to be invoked. On the other hand, in order to prove a certain legal relationship between the parties, the Court is not only concerned with the state of affairs prevailing at the time when the question arose, but also with the state of affairs prevailing when the alleged legal relationship is said to have arisen.”
Section 4 and the Types of Presumptions
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act codifies the concept of presumptions and introduces three types:
- Presumption of Fact (May Presume)
- Presumption of Law
- Rebuttable Presumption of Law (Shall Presume)
- Irrebuttable Presumption of Law (Conclusive Proof)
May Presume
According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the term may presume is used, it implies that the court has the discretion to:
- Regard a fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or
- Call for additional proof before treating it as proved.
This type of presumption is a presumption of fact, meaning it arises from logical inferences drawn from natural human reasoning or the usual course of events. Such presumptions are based on the connection, relation, or coincidence of facts and circumstances observed in daily life.
Key Features of May Presume:
- Discretionary Nature: The court is not obligated to draw the presumption, even if there is no evidence to rebut it.
- Rebuttable: These presumptions can always be countered with evidence to disprove the fact presumed.
For instance, under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a husband or his relatives abetted a married woman’s suicide if it occurred within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty. However, this presumption is not absolute and can be rebutted if the husband provides evidence disproving his involvement.
Thus, may presume gives the court flexibility to decide based on the merits of each case and the overall evidence presented.
Shall Presume
According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, when it is directed that the court shall presume a fact, the court is bound to regard that fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. In such cases, the court does not have the discretion to decide otherwise and is compelled to presume the fact as true.
This concept of shall presume represents rebuttable presumptions of law, which arise when legal provisions establish specific rules defining the level of evidence needed to support a claim or allegation. These presumptions hold the field unless evidence to the contrary is provided. However, in the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the presumption is treated as conclusive.
Key Features of Shall Presume:
- Mandatory Nature: The court is required to presume the fact as true, without any discretion.
- Rebuttable: These presumptions allow the opposing party to present evidence to disprove the presumed fact.
- Burden of Proof: The primary function of these presumptions is to determine on whom the burden of proof or evidential burden lies, depending on the nature and effect of the presumption.
For example:
- Under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, in cases of rape, if the victim states that she did not consent, the court shall presume the absence of consent. The accused is then required to present evidence to rebut this presumption.
- Similarly, in cases of negotiable instruments, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the court shall presume that every negotiable instrument is made for consideration unless proven otherwise.
In summary, shall presume strengthens legal presumptions by shifting the evidential burden to the opposing party, ensuring efficiency and fairness in legal proceedings while allowing flexibility to rebut false claims.
Conclusive Proof
Under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, when one fact is declared to be conclusive proof of another, the court is required to:
- Regard the second fact as proved upon proof of the first fact, and
- Disallow any evidence to disprove the second fact.
This means the court has absolutely no discretion in such cases. It cannot ask a party to prove the fact further, nor can it permit the opposing party to present evidence to challenge or rebut it.
Key Features of Conclusive Proof:
- Irrebuttable Presumption of Law: These are legal rules where no evidence, regardless of its nature or credibility, is permitted to disprove the presumption.
- Artificial Probative Effect: The law assigns an absolute evidentiary value to certain facts, that cannot be challenged.
Example:
- Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act declares that a child born during the continuation of a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution (provided the mother has not remarried), is conclusively presumed to be legitimate. Even if evidence of non-access is presented, the presumption of legitimacy remains irrebuttable, ensuring societal stability and avoiding unnecessary disputes.
In essence, conclusive proof represents the strongest form of presumption under the law, where the connection between facts is considered absolute and indisputable for reasons of justice, public policy, or convenience. It reflects the law’s intent to prioritize certain societal or legal principles over individual evidence in specific situations.