Comprehension

It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of “shall presume” in section 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a “prudent man”. If the material placed before the court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of “prudent man”, the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under section 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the Judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity.
[Extract from Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, para 5].

Question: 1

The standard of proof referred to as the “prudent man” standard in the excerpt and in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would correspond to which of the following explanations?

Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
  • Preponderance of probabilities standard.
  • Beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Clear and convincing
  • Prima facie.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The “prudent man” standard in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 aligns with the preponderance of probabilities standard, which is generally applied in civil cases.
The correct option is (A): Preponderance of probabilities standard

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

In common parlance, the terms “onus of proof ” and “burden of proof ” are used interchangeably. However, in accurate usage in evidence law, the terms correspond to which of the following?

Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
  • Burden of proof refers to an evidential burden whereas onus of proof refers to a legal burden.
  • Onus of proof refers to evidential burden whereas burden of proof refers to legal burden
  • Onus of proof may refer to both evidential and legal burdens whereas burden of proof refers only to the evidential burden
  • Burden of proof and onus of proof are the same concept. “Burden” is used in Indian law, whereas “onus” is used in the common law system.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

In legal terminology, ”onus of proof” often refers to the evidential burden, while ”burden of proof” relates to the overall legal burden required to establish a case.
The correct option is (B): Onus of proof refers to evidential burden whereas burden of proof refers to legal burden

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also refers to the concept of “conclusive proof ”. In simple terms, the concept can be explained as:

Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
  • The proof of a fact through persuasive evidence which cannot be considered false.
  • The proof of a fact by the doctrine of judicial notice, and therefore not requiring any further proof.
  • The declaration of a fact as conclusively proved by the statute, and then not allowing any evidence to disprove it
  • The presumption that a fact need not be proved when admitted as true by both parties to a suit or proceeding.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Conclusive proof under Section 4 means a fact is established by law as true, barring any contradictory evidence.
The correct option is (C): The declaration of a fact as conclusively proved by the statute, and then not allowing any evidence to disprove it

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

With reference to the above excerpt, which of the following propositions emerges true in a criminal trial?

Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
  • Where the defence raises a plea of insanity under S.84, IPC, the prosecution must disprove this by leading evidence.
  • Where the defence raises a plea of insanity under S.84, IPC, the prosecution has no additional burden, but the defence assumes the burden of proving insanity.
  • Where the defence raises a plea of insanity under S.84, IPC, the prosecution must specifically prove mens rea by disproving the plea of insanity.
  • All of the statements above are true.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Under Section 84 of the IPC, the burden of proving insanity lies with the defence. The prosecution does not have an added burden to disprove it.
The correct option is (B): Where the defence raises a plea of insanity under S.84, IPC, the prosecution has no additional burden, but the defence assumes the burden of proving insanity.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies in which of the following circumstances?

Updated On: Nov 7, 2024
  • Where circumstances are pleaded by the accused bringing the case within a General Exception in the IPC
  • Where circumstances are pleaded by the accused bringing the case within a General Exception, special exception or proviso in the IPC or in any law defining the offence
  • Where the mens rea required for the offence is expressly negatived by the accused.
  • Where circumstances are pleaded by the accused bringing the case within a special exception that is recognised by the law.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Section 105 places the burden on the accused to prove circumstances that fall within a General Exception, special exception, or proviso in the IPC.
The correct option is (B): Where circumstances are pleaded by the accused bringing the case within a General Exception, special exception or proviso in the IPC or in any law defining the offence

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Jurisprudence

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

View More Questions