How can the burden of proof be shifted

The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. The fundamental rule relating to proof in all criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings is that the onus is on the prosecution, where there is no statutory provision to the contrary.

But in appreciating its scope and the nature of the onus cast by it, due regard must be given to other kindred principles, no less fundamental, of universal application. El Dorado of absolute proof being unattainable, the law, accepts for it, probability as a working substitute in this work-a-day world.

The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind.

The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.

The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.

Rajendran, 8 SCC A plaintiff in a civil case or a petitioner in an administrative case , or the state in a criminal case need only allege the existence of facts needed to prove each requisite element of the alleged wrong, offense, or crime.

The averments or allegations contained therein are presumed to be true during this initial stage. However, at the actual trial, the party then bears the burden of proof to present evidence tending to support or prove the facts alleged in the complaint or petition.

Following this presentation of the case in chief, an opposing party may then petition the court to dismiss the case before it reaches a jury , for failure in meeting a required burden of proof. Home Information. Find Attorney. For Attorneys. We Help! For example :- A claims that B has stolen money and gold from A. Now A has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that B has done that. In criminal proceedings, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove that the accused has beyond reasonable doubt, has harmed the plaintiff.

Failure of proving that results in acquittal of the accused. Sec of Indian Evidence Act states that whoever desires the Court to give any judgment based on the facts the person asserts, to any legal right or liability, must prove that such facts exist. Normally the one who files a suit or complaint has to prove that the accused has done the act with proper valid evidence. Throughout the trial the burden of proof keeps on shifting from one person to another. The parties need to prove whatever they say in the court of law, with the help of valid evidences and witnesses.

The rule of burden of proof is different in civil and criminal cases as in civil cases the party who alleges anything needs to only prove the fact, but not necessary that such facts are proved beyond reasonable doubts. But in criminal cases, it is mandatory to prove any facts beyond reasonable doubts or the defendant might get the benefit of the doubt and will be acquitted. In Jarnail v State of Punjab AIR , the Supreme Court observed that in all the criminal cases the responsibility of proving that the defendant has committed the crime beyond all the reasonable doubts is upon the plaintiff to prove and it cannot depend on the evidence brought by the accused to prove that the defendant has committed the crime.

The prosecution cannot just prove the facts claimed by the defendant as untrue. When the prosecution has fulfilled his obligation of proving the facts claimed by them, then it is the responsibility of the defendant to rebut such facts by producing contradictory evidence.

In a criminal proceeding after the prosecution has proved the facts beyond any doubts, the onus is then shifted on the defendant to prove the facts or he might get acquitted.