Presumption Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

A fact assumed to be true under the law is called a presumption. For example, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecuting attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty.

Presumptions are used to relieve a party from having to actually prove the truth of the fact being presumed. Once a presumption is relied on by one party, however, the other party is normally allowed to offer evidence to disprove (rebut) the presumption. The presumption is known as a rebuttable presumption. In essence, then, what a presumption really does is place the obligation of presenting evidence concerning a particular fact on a particular party The Indian Evidence Act does not make an attempt to define what a presumption is. Stephen defines it as a rule of law that courts and Judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such interference is disproved. This definition speaks about mandatory presumption but not of permissive presumption. This paper explores the various types of presumptions existing under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the situations, where presumptions could exist or be applied.

Keywords: Indian Evidence Act, Law on presumptions, Criminal Law

JEL Classification: K10, K12, K14, K40, K41

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation