WHAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE Whether a legal aspirant or a common man, every person has this basic understanding that in a criminal law...
WHAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE
Whether a legal aspirant or a common man, every person has this basic understanding that in a criminal law case, it is the prosecution who has to prove the guilt of the accused and that too BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. In simple words, "Everyone is presumed to be innocent in the eyes of law until proven guilty".
For example: If a person commits theft, it is the person whose property has been stolen needs to prove that it was his property and also needs to prove that the person on whom he is making allegations of theft, that every person has committed theft, and all these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
IS THE RULE UNIVERSAL?
If we talk in a general mood, then yes, the rule is a universal rule of criminal law without giving a second thought to it. But, if we put a glance at some intense aspects of criminal law, then we will find that there are some instances where this general rule is not followed and the burden of proving is initially on the person on whom the allegation is made. That means he is alleged by someone to have been committed an offence and now he himself has to prove his innocence that he has not committed any offence.
WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS BASIC RULE OF LAW?
1. POCSO(Protection of the child from sexual offences) ACT, 2012
SECTION 30 of the ACT says that- " In every offence under this act, which require a culpable mental state to commit an offence, the court shall presume the existence of such culpable mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that no such culpable mental state existed.
Sub section (2) of Section 30 says- " The fact that there was no such mental state is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt".
2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
In this Act a woman aggrieved from domestic violence may claim for several types of reliefs, out of which one is a Protection Order against the person who committed Domestic Violence under this Act. Now, if the person against whom the protection order is issued by the court, if he violates that order, that is, if he again commits an act of such violence, then it is a cognizable offence under section 31 of the Act.
SECTION 32(2) of the Act says that- "Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused.
3. Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 16(3) says that- "Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
The term unconscionable bargain means a contract entered between two persons, one of whom is in a position to dominate the will of the other and has taken undue advantage of his position.
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 363A(3) says that- " where a person, not being a lawful guardian of a minor, employs or uses such minor for the purposes of begging, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he kidnapped or otherwise obtained the custody of that minor in order that minor might be employed or used for the purposes of begging."
Basically, this offence is regarding presumption for kidnapping a minor if he/she is found begging.
5. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 114A of the Act says that- In a prosecution of rape under section 376(2) of Indian penal code (IPC), where sexual intercourse is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent".
Rape U/S 376(2) are some aggravated forms of rape that are committed by police officers, public servants, members of armed forces, management of the jail, by a relative, guardian or teacher, or a person in the position of trust towards such woman.
6. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 111A says that- "where a person is at a place in an area which is declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment or in any area in which there has been, over a period of more than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace, and it is shown that the person had been at a place at a time when firearms or explosives were used at, it shall be presumed that such person had committed offences U/S 121, 121A, 122, 123 of IPC. (click to read these offences)
7. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304B ( Dowry Death), it says that- Where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or under some unnatural circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, and it is shown that soon before her marriage she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or her husband's relative in relation to unlawful demand of dowry, it shall be presumed that they have committed dowry death.
link to my previous blogs: https://lawionsoflaw.blogspot.com/
CONCLUSION
With the understanding of the above-mentioned provisions, it seems that the legislature has put these cases in the exception category due to their heinous nature or due to the reason that it would be unfair to put the burden of proof on the opposite party or for the reason that public peace is at the stake.
This is not an exhaustive list of the exception but a very basic list to get an idea that if an accused gets involved in such cases, it becomes very difficult for him, because the court does not presume him to be innocent from the beginning of the case, but it presumes him to be guilty of the offence.
Thank you
Nikhil Tak
Campus Law Centre, Delhi University
No comments