The Burden of Proving a Particular Fact: An Analysis of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Burden of Proving a Particular Fact: An Analysis of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Introduction

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act"), lays down the foundational principles governing the admissibility and appreciation of evidence in judicial proceedings in India. Chapter VII of the Act, titled "Of the Burden of Proof," is pivotal in determining which party bears the onus of establishing facts before a court. Within this chapter, Section 103 specifically addresses the burden of proving a "particular fact." This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 103, examining its legislative text, its interplay with other provisions of the Act, its judicial interpretation through various landmark and illustrative precedents, and its practical implications in both civil and criminal litigation in India.

The Legislative Mandate: Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides as follows:

"103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Illustrations

(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.

(b) B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it."

The essence of Section 103 is straightforward: if a party desires the court to accept a specific factual assertion, that party must adduce evidence to prove it. This rule is subject to any contrary provision in law that might place the burden of proving that particular fact on a different party. The illustrations appended to the section clarify its application: Illustration (a) pertains to the prosecution proving an admission in a criminal case, while Illustration (b) famously exemplifies the burden on an accused to prove a plea of alibi.

Interplay with General Principles of Burden of Proof (Sections 101 & 102)

Section 103 operates within the broader framework established by Sections 101 and 102 of the Act. Section 101 states that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. This establishes the general rule that the burden of proof, in the sense of the ultimate burden of establishing a case, lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. As observed in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh[1], Section 101 of the Evidence Act clearly lays down that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of a fact. Similarly, in Jaykumar Ganpat Deshmukh v. Bhartiya Krushi Vima Co.[2], the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reiterated this principle from Section 101.

Section 102 deals with the onus of adducing evidence, stating that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The Supreme Court in Shardaben Jayantibhai Patel v. Star Health And Allied Insurance Co Ltd[3] noted that Section 102 provides a test regarding on whom the burden of proof would lie, and that there are exceptions to the general rule as enunciated in Sections 101 and 102, one of which is Section 103 concerning the burden of proving a particular fact.

Section 103 can thus be seen as a specific application or a more focused articulation of the principle in Section 101. While Section 101 deals with the overall burden of proving the facts necessary to establish a claim or defence, Section 103 narrows the focus to "any particular fact" that a party wishes the court to believe. If a party introduces a specific factual element into the proceedings, whether as part of their primary claim, defence, or a collateral issue, Section 103 mandates that they bear the responsibility of proving that specific fact.

Core Tenet: Burden on the Asserter of a Particular Fact

The fundamental principle of Section 103 is that the party asserting a particular fact must prove it. This applies irrespective of whether the party is the plaintiff/prosecutor or the defendant/accused. If a specific assertion is made to influence the court's decision, the onus rests with the maker of that assertion.

In Union Of India v. Ibrahim Uddin And Another[4], the Supreme Court emphasized the plaintiff's primary responsibility to substantiate their claims, reinforcing the general principle that the party asserting facts must prove them. While this case primarily discussed the overall burden, its underlying logic aligns with Section 103 when particular facts are in contention.

The Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Bankatram Lachiram[5], while referencing the provision as "Section 108" (likely a typographical error in the original report, as the quoted text and illustration (a) correspond to Section 103), correctly identified its import: "when a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstance of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him." This aligns with the principle that if a party asserts a particular intention (a specific fact), they must prove it.

Judicial Application of Section 103: Key Areas

Section 103 has been consistently applied by Indian courts across various factual matrices in both criminal and civil law.

1. Plea of Alibi in Criminal Law

One of the most prominent applications of Section 103 is in relation to the plea of alibi, as explicitly stated in Illustration (b). When an accused person contends that they were elsewhere at the time the alleged offence was committed, they are asserting a particular fact. Consequently, the burden of proving this alibi rests squarely on the accused.

The Supreme Court in State Of Haryana v. Sher Singh And Others[6] unequivocally held: "When an accused pleads alibi, the burden is on him to prove it under Section 103 of the Evidence Act." This principle was reiterated in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State Of Gujarat[7], where the Court stated that the burden on the accused to prove alibi "flows from Section 103 of the Evidence Act which provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence." The Court further clarified that while the prosecution must first discharge its burden of proving the crime, once that is done, the accused taking the plea of alibi must prove it with certainty.

Similar affirmations are found in High Court judgments. The Rajasthan High Court in State v. Ladhu Singh[8] observed that if an accused sets up a plea of alibi, the burden of proof lies on him under Section 103 to establish the plea. The Karnataka High Court in SRI. MOHANKUMAR. N v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[9], citing Sher Singh, reiterated that the burden to prove alibi is on the accused under Section 103.

However, it is important to note the observation in Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State Of M.P.[10], where the Supreme Court, while finding Section 103 inapplicable to the specific facts of that case (which did not involve an alibi as a defence), acknowledged that a "Plea of alibi by way of defence stands on a different footing." This implicitly recognizes the established role of Section 103 in alibi cases.

2. Asserting Particular Facts in Civil Cases

In civil litigation, Section 103 applies whenever a party introduces a specific factual assertion crucial to their claim or defence.

In Bombay Baroda & Central India Railway Company v. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal[11], the Bombay High Court applied Section 103 in a case concerning a risk note. The plaintiffs wished the Court to believe that there was wilful neglect or theft by Railway servants. The Court held: "it therefore lies on the plaintiffs under section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act to give proof of the fact." Since the plaintiffs failed to do so, their suit was dismissed.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sujan Singh v. Lalsahab And Anr.[12], dealing with a suit where the main fact in issue was whether sale consideration was actually paid (though stated in the document), noted that Section 103 of the Evidence Act and Section 55(5)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act required the defendant (who asserted payment) to prove this positively and affirmatively.

3. Special Pleas (e.g., Undue Influence)

When a party raises a special plea, such as undue influence, the burden of proving the facts constituting that plea lies on them under Section 103.

In Surendra Pal And Others v. Dr (Mrs) Saraswati Arora And Another[13], the Supreme Court, while discussing a plea of undue influence in the context of a will, stated: "We think that a plea of undue influence, where set up, is a special plea. Section 103 of the Evidence Act places the burden of substantiating such a plea on the party which sets it up."

4. Proving a Particular Intention (Illustration (a))

Illustration (a) to Section 103 ("A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.") demonstrates that if the prosecution wishes the court to believe a particular fact (the admission), it must prove that fact. This extends to situations where a particular intention, different from what the circumstances might suggest, is alleged.

As noted in Emperor v. Bankatram Lachiram[5], if a person does an act with an intention other than what the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that specific intention is upon the person asserting it. While the reference material for Satish Narayan Sawant v. State Of Goa[14] focuses on differentiating intent and knowledge in culpable homicide under the IPC, the general principle of proving a specific mental state (a particular fact) aligns with the logic of Section 103.

Distinction from Section 106 (Fact Especially Within Knowledge)

It is crucial to distinguish Section 103 from Section 106 of the Act. Section 106 states: "When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." While both sections deal with the burden of proof concerning specific facts, their operational spheres differ.

Section 103 applies when a party *wishes the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact* they assert. Section 106, on the other hand, applies when a fact is *especially within the knowledge* of a person, and the burden shifts to that person to disclose it, often in circumstances where the other party would find it disproportionately difficult to prove.

The Allahabad High Court in Dharmendra Rajbhar v. State Of U.P.[15] and Meena v. State Of U.P.[16] clarified that Section 106 is an exception to Section 101 and does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty. It is resorted to when the prosecution, for acceptable reasons, cannot lead evidence because the fact is specially within the accused's knowledge. The Chhattisgarh High Court in Ram Prasad @ Munna v. State Of Chhattisgarh[17] and RAMNATH CHERWA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[18] echoed similar sentiments about Section 106 applying where facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused and a reasonable inference of guilt can be drawn from facts proved by the prosecution. The Supreme Court's decision in State Of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram[19], which extensively discussed Section 106, highlights its application when an accused, last seen with the deceased, fails to explain facts within their special knowledge.

Section 103 is broader in the sense that it applies to any party asserting any particular fact, regardless of special knowledge, unless another law provides otherwise. Section 106 is a specific rule based on the principle of special knowledge.

Procedural Implications and Evidentiary Considerations

Section 103 has significant procedural implications. It guides parties in preparing their cases, as they must be ready to adduce evidence for every particular fact they intend to rely upon. Failure to discharge this burden can lead to the court not believing the existence of that fact, potentially weakening the party's overall case.

The general duty of a party to prove its assertions, as underscored by Section 103 for particular facts, is fundamental. As seen in Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharahstra and another[20], the prosecution must prove by leading evidence any fact required to be proved by statute. While this case does not directly cite Section 103, the principle of proving asserted facts is consonant with it.

The case of Jaspal Kaur Cheema And Another v. Industrial Trade Links And Others[21], though focused on estoppel under Section 116 and amendment of pleadings, implicitly touches upon the need for parties to substantiate the facts they plead, which aligns with the responsibility under Section 103 if a particular fact is asserted for seeking amendment.

Cases like State Of U.P v. Krishna Gopal And Another[22] (dying declarations), Abuthagir v. State[23] and SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[24] (discoveries under Section 27), and Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Another v. Shakuntla Devi[25] (compensation for deficiency of service), while not directly interpreting Section 103, involve situations where parties assert various particular facts (e.g., reliability of a declaration, fact of discovery, extent of loss) which must be proved through evidence, reflecting the broader ecosystem of proof within which Section 103 operates.

Conclusion

Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, embodies a crucial principle of procedural fairness and evidentiary responsibility: he who asserts a particular fact must prove it. Its application is wide-ranging, covering specific assertions in both criminal and civil proceedings, most notably the plea of alibi in criminal law, and various specific claims or defences in civil law. By placing the onus on the party wishing the court to believe in a particular fact, Section 103 ensures that judicial findings are based on substantiated assertions rather than mere allegations. Its clear mandate, supported by judicial interpretation, continues to be a cornerstone in the administration of justice in India, ensuring that the burden of proof for specific factual contentions is appropriately allocated.

References

  1. Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558.
  2. Jaykumar Ganpat Deshmukh v. Bhartiya Krushi Vima Co., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2022 (as per provided text).
  3. Shardaben Jayantibhai Patel v. Star Health And Allied Insurance Co Ltd, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2024 (Civil Appeal No. 3821 of 2024, SC, cited within).
  4. Union Of India v. Ibrahim Uddin And Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148.
  5. Emperor v. Bankatram Lachiram, (1904) ILR 28 Bom 533 (referring to the provision as S.108 but quoting S.103 Ill. (a)).
  6. State Of Haryana v. Sher Singh And Others, (1981) 2 SCC 300.
  7. Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State Of Gujarat, (2002) 8 SCC 165.
  8. State v. Ladhu Singh, 1970 WLN 64 (Raj).
  9. SRI. MOHANKUMAR. N v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2012, Karnataka High Court, 2022 (as per provided text).
  10. Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State Of M.P., (2006) 12 SCC 321.
  11. Bombay Baroda & Central India Railway Company v. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal, (1919) ILR 43 Bom 769; 1919 SCC OnLine Bom 110.
  12. Sujan Singh v. Lalsahab And Anr., 1991 MPLJ 408.
  13. Surendra Pal And Others v. Dr (Mrs) Saraswati Arora And Another, (1974) 2 SCC 600.
  14. Satish Narayan Sawant v. State Of Goa, (2009) 17 SCC 724.
  15. Dharmendra Rajbhar v. State Of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 923.
  16. Meena v. State Of U.P., 2021 (10) ADJ 761 (All HC).
  17. Ram Prasad @ Munna v. State Of Chhattisgarh, CRMP No. 1592 of 2023, Chhattisgarh High Court, 2023 (as per provided text).
  18. RAMNATH CHERWA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, CRA No. 1008 of 2014, Chhattisgarh High Court, 2024 (as per provided text).
  19. State Of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254.
  20. Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharahstra and another, (2009) 7 SCC 104.
  21. Jaspal Kaur Cheema And Another v. Industrial Trade Links And Others, (2017) 8 SCC 592.
  22. State Of U.P v. Krishna Gopal And Another, 1988 SCC (Cri) 928.
  23. Abuthagir v. State, (2009) 17 SCC 718 (as per provided text, likely referring to a different case or part of a larger judgment).
  24. SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 103.
  25. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Another v. Shakuntla Devi, (2017) 2 SCC 301.