hsp project

7/31/2019 Hsp Project

1/18

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF STATUTORY LAW AND PRESUMPTIONS

PROJECT ON BURDEN OF PROOF

SUBMITTED BY

HARIKRISHNAN.V

REG NO: 592


2/18


3/18

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Jacob Joseph for helping me with the project and for

standing with me during the test of times. I would also like to thank my parents for being

with me.


4/18

BURDEN OF PROOF

INTRODUCTION

The expression Burden of proofmeans two different things .It means something that party is

required to prove an allegation before judgement can be given its favour ; it also means `that

on a contested issue one of the two contenting parties has to introduce evidence . The burden

of proof is of importance where by reason of not discharging the burden which `was put upon

it, a party must eventually fail.1

This burden will, at the beginning of trail, lie on one party, but during the course of the trail it

may shift from one side to other . At the end of a case when both parties have led evidence

and the conflicting evidence can be weighed to determine which way the issue can be

decided, the abstract question of burden of proof becomes academic. Where in an eviction

proceeding the fact of sub-tenancy was established though the sub-tenant had left the ground

was not thereby wiped out , the court said that either party was free to prove his case and all

questions as to burden of proof also becomes irrelevant when the entire evidence on the

matter is already on record

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi

incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always

lies with the person who lays charges."2

This is a statement of a version of the presumption of

innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a

general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie

with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the

consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might

alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned

institutionally.

Chapter VII, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which relates to the burden of proof, deals with a

subject which requires a little explanation. This is a subject of presumptions.

1Narayan v Gopal,AIR 1960 SC 100

2Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S 197 (1977)


5/18

WHEN THE THEORY WAS IN GENESIS

In times when the true theory of proof was in its infancy, numerous attempts were being

made to construct theories as to the weight of the evidence which should supply the want of

one founded on observation.

The doctrine of presumptions was closely connected to this theory. Presumptions were

inferences which the judges were directed to draw from certain states of facts in certain cases

and there presumptions were allowed a certain amount of weight in the scale of proof.

A/C to the English law, there are 4 kinds of Presumptions:

1. Conclusive presumptions-they provide that certain modes of proof shall not be liableto contradiction.

2. Presumptions which affect the ordinary rule as to the burden of proof that he whoaffirms must prove.

3. There are certain presumptions which, though liable to be rebutted, are regarded byEnglish law as being something more than mere maxims. An instance of such

presumption is to be found in the rule that recent possession of stolen goods

unexplained raises a presumption that the possessor is either the thief or the receiver.

4. Bare presumptions of fact-chapter VII of the Indian evidence act, deals with thissubject as follows;

a. It lays down the general principles which regulate the burden of proofb. It then enumerates the cases in which the burden of proof is determined in

particular cases by presumptions.


6/18

Burden of proof - Types of burden

There are generally three broad types of burdens.

A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for

the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of

the trier of fact the party carrying the burden will succeed in their claim. For example the

presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of

the offence and to disprove all the defenses.

An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between

parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will

consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon

the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption

A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain

evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can

present evidence to the contrary.

Standard of Poof

The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal action to convince the court that

a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the

proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the balance of probabilities

(BOP), i.e preponderance of evidence in the US, beyond a reasonable doubt (commonly

refered to as BARD), or just beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to these, the US introduced

a third standard called clear and convincing evidence

Burden of proof - Balance of probabilities

Also known as "preponderance of the evidence", this is the standard required in most civil

cases. The standard is met if the likelihood that the proposition is true is more likely than it

not being true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that

the proposition is true. Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of pension described it simply as

"more probable than not".


7/18

Burden of proof - Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be

proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person

(usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the

extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise

meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence

of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury

that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain).

The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting

cases. For example, O.J. Simpson was cleared in a criminal trial of murder, but, in a

subsequent civil trial, due to the lower standard of proof, had substantial damages for

wrongful death ordered against him.

Burden of proof - Clear and convincing evidence

Clear and convincing evidence is the intermediate level of burden of persuasion sometimes

employed in the US civil procedure. In order to prove something by "Clear and convincing

evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is

substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement

than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which requires that the trier of fact be all but certain

of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of

the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (1872)

Sections 101 to 114 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with Burden of Proof. Some of the

important sections are explained below :-

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act states that Whoever desires any Court to give

judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which heasserts must prove that those facts exists.


8/18

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof

lies on that person

The burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and

not upon the party who denies it. This rule of convenience has been adopted in practice, not

because it is impossible to prove a negative, but because the negative does not admit of the

direct and simple proof of which the affirmative is capable. Moreover, it is but reasonable

and just that the suitor who relies upon the existence of a fact, should be called upon to prove

his own case. In the application of this rule, regard must be had to the substance and effect of

the issue, and not to its grammatical form, for in many cases the party, by making a slight

alteration in the drawing of his pleadings, may give the issue a negative or affirmative form,

at his pleasure.

The party, on whom the onus of proof lies must, in order to succeed, establish a prima facie

case. He cannot, on failure to do so, take advantage of the weakness of his adversarys case.

He must succeed by the strength of his own right and the clearness of his own proof. He

cannot be heard to say that it was too difficult or virtually impossible to prove the matter in

question as in the case of Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh3or a mere suspicion is

not a proof of benami as in the case of Drigpal Singh v. Wife of LaldhariOjha.4

Where a party accepts the burden which is laid upon it by the trial Court without any

demur or protest and allows the case to proceed on the basis throughout the trial, it cannot,

when it fails to discharge it, turn round and say in appeal that the burden should not have

been placed upon it.

The general rule that a party who desires to move the Court must prove all facts necessary for

that purpose (ss. 101 to 105) is subject to two exceptions :-

He will not be required to prove such facts as are especially within the knowledge of the

other party (s. 106)

He will not be required to prove so much of his allegations in respect of which there is any

presumption of law (ss. 107 to 113), or in some cases, of facts (ss. 104) in his favour.

3AIR 1988 SC 637 : 1988(2) SCC 12

4AIR 1985 pat 110


9/18

The expression Burden of Proof means two different things. It means sometimes that a

party is required to prove an allegation before judgement can be given in its favour ; it also

means that on a contested issue one of the two contending parties has to introduce evidence.

The burden of proof is of importance where by reason of not discharging the burden which

was put upon it, a party must eventually fall. This burden will, at the beginning of a trial, lie

on the party, but during the course of the trial it may shift from one side to another. At the

end of a case when both the parties have led evidence and the conflicting evidence can be

weighed to determine which way the issue can be decided, the abstract question of burden of

proof becomes academic.

The term onus probandi, in its proper use, merely means that, if a fact has to be proved, the

person whose interest it is to prove it should adduce some evidence, however slightly, upon

which a Court could find the fact he desires the Court to find. It does not mean that he shall

call all conceivable or available evidence. It merely means that the evidence he lays before

the court should be sufficient, if not contradicted to form the basis of a judgement and decree

upon that point in his favour. Where there is an admission by a party the burden of proof

shifts and it is for the party making the admission to explain it away.

In the matter of proof, in a civil case, a defendant cannot take up the same stand as an

accused in a criminal case. In civil cases, unlike criminal ones, it cannot be said that the

benefit of reasonable doubt must necessarily go to the defendant. Even the preponderance of

probabilities may serve as a good basis for decision. The Supreme Court has held that in a

civil case involving allegation of charges of criminal or fraudulent character insistence on

proving charges clearly and beyond reasonable doubt is wrong. In a tort action for malicious

prosecution, if the plaintiff fails to prove that the criminal complaint was lodged against him

without any reasonable and probable cause, his suit fails.

There is no ritualistic formula nor a cut and dried test to law down as to how a charge of

undue influence can be proved but if all the circumstances taken together lead to the

irresistible inference that the voters were pressurised, threatened or assaulted at the instance

of either candidate, that should be sufficient to vitiate the election while insisting on standard

of strict proof, the court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extent as to

make it well knigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. Such an approach


10/18

would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining

purity of the electoral process.

In a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts

always rests on the prosecution and on its failure it cannot fall back upon the evidence

adduced by the accused in support of his defence to rest its case solely thereon. In criminal

cases it is for the prosecution to bring the guilt home to the accused. It is not correct to say

that when the prosecution has adduced such evidence as the circumstances and nature of the

case require, it is for the accused to establish his innocence for the reason that there is no

burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient if he succeeds in raising

a doubt as to his guilt. In a criminal trial burden of proof squarely rests upon prosecution.

Examining defence evidence first and then examining prosecution evidence is improper. In

an accusatory system, such as that prevailing in India, it is for the prosecution to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence; it is not for the court to

speculate as to how the crime has been committed. It is for the prosecution to determine what

witnesses it should call in support of its case. Witnesses essential to the unfolding of the

narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the

result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution. Prosecution

cannot succeed just by showing that the defence raised is suspicious. Where the prosecutioncould not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was connected with the

destruction of a film, the accused was given the benefit of doubt..

Recovery of articles by itself does not connect anybody with the crime. Connection of the

accused with the articles must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Even total silence of the

accused as to any defence on his part does not lighten the prosecution burden to prove its case

satisfactorily. In M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore initial burden of

proof lies on the prosecution. It cannot take advantage of weaknesses of the defence or the

inconsistent stand taken by the accused. It must stand on its own legs basing on the evidence

that has been let in by it. It is a well established principal of law that the accused persons are

under no obligation to substantiate their defence version. They are simply to come forward

with a probable and plausible version.

As against this heavy burden on the prosecution the accused can claim the benefit of his

defence just by showing a balance of probabilities. He has not to prove his defence beyond a

reasonable doubt. The prosecution proved in a case that an official had accepted a sum of


11/18

money which was intended to be a bribe. The Supreme Court said that the accused must

prove his justification and he can do so on a balance of probabilities and need not prove

beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution can not derive any advantage from falsity or other

infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden of proving

its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Proof of Death

Section 107 and 108 deal with the burden of proving the death of a person and proving that a

person was, alive in certain circumstances. The sections say:

107.When the question is whether a man is alive or dead , and it is shown that he was alive

within thirty years , the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it

108.Provided that when it is proved that he has notbeen heard of for seven years by those

alive is shifted to the person who affirms it

Therefore if a person was known to be alive within 30 years the presumption is that he is

alive , and if the person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally

have heard of him if he had been alive , the presumption is that the person is dead ; but , no

presumption can be drawn as to the time of death

In Mohd Sharif v Bande Ali.5

, the appellants sought to redeem a mortgage made by their

uncle. According to them their uncle , the original mortgagor, disappeared about 18n years

ago , that he must be presumed to have been dead for last 11 years, that their father must

deemed to have succeeded his brother during time and that after their fathers death , they, as

their heirs , had the right to redeem the mortgage. It was held that the presumption which was

permissible under section 108 does not go further than mere fact of death. If the period which

has elapsed since the time that the person whose death was last heard of is not more than 7

not in subsequent periods.

If the time of death is in issue or is a relevant fact, it must be established by independent

direct or circumstantial evidence

5(1861) ILR 34 ALL 36


12/18

Burden in case of certain relations

Section 109 deals with the burden of proof as to the discontinuance of relationship in case of

partners , landlord and tenant and principal and agent .When the question is whether persons

are partners , landlord and tenant , or principal and agent , and it has been shown that they

have been acting as such , the burden of proving that they do not stand , or have cesed to

stand , to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it . The

presumption in these cases is that once the relationship is proved to have existed the

relationship continues , and whoever affirms that such relationship ceased must prove it.

Section 110 deals with the presumption of ownership as to the ownership drawn from

possession and the corresponding burden of proof . When the question is whether any person

is the owner of anything which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he

is not the owner is on the person who affirms he is not the owner That is why it is said that

possession amounts to nine points in law.

The plaintiff claimed to bepattedars of the land in question. They proved long and peaceful

enjoyment of the land. Though there was no proof of grant of patta and acquisition of the title

, a presumption of ownership arise rose in favour of plaintiff.6

Section 111 deals with the burden of proving good faith in transactions where one party is

in relation of active confidence towards the other.

Where there is a question as to good fasith of a transaction between parties , one of whom

stands to other in position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of

transaction os on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

.Burden in case of terrorists

Section111- A states

Where aperson is accused of having commited any offence specified in subsection (2), in-

6Chief Conservator of Forests v Collector , (2003) 3 SCC 472


13/18

a) Any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment , for the time beign in

force , making provisions for the suppression of disorder and restoration and

maintenance of public order, or

b) Any area in which there has been , over the period of more than one month extensive

disturbance of public peace.

And it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at atime when firearms or

explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist the members of any armed

forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of

their duties, it shall be presumed , unless the contrary is shown, that such person had

committed an offence

2.The offences reffered to in sub-section(1)are the following namely

(a) an offence under sction 121, section 121-A, section 122 or section 123 of the

Indian penal code

(b)criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit , or abetment of, an offence under

Section 122 or Section 123 of the Indian Penal Code.

The burden of establishing the case is on A under section 101 . The burden of introducing evidence

under section 102 is also on A , because , if no evidence is adduced , the presumption of innocence

will operate in favour of B , and the admission being a particular fact , asserted by A, A must

introduce evidence to prove it, there being no rule of law anywhere throwing the burden on B.

Burden in case of dowry death

Section 113 deals with this in this section if a women committed suicide within a period of seven

years of marriage it is presumed that the the women committed suicide due to the pressure of her

husbands family here the burden of proof is on the husbands family to prove that the lady has notcommitted the sucide de to their pressure.

Burden in certain cases of rape

Section 144-A is as follows-

In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c)or cluse (d) or clause (g)

of sub section (20 of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the

accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of woman alleged to


14/18

have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the

Court shall presume that she did not consent

In Vallicheruku Village Panchayath v Nori Venketrama Deekshitulu7, it was held that the

presumptions under these sections can be raised to fill up gaps in the absence of evidence ,

but cannot be used contradict evidence.

Burden of proof in criminal cases

The burden of proof in criminal cases rests over the prosecution. This rule is a part of the

Comon law in England which is followed in this country. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence

act indicates the Standard of proof.When it is said that a person accused of a criminal charge

is presumed to be innocent, what is really meant is that the burden of proving his guilt is upon

the prosecution. He cannot be convicted when there is the least fair doubt in the minds of the

Courts.

The prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of the weakness in the defence

version. The prosecution have to prove the guilt of the accused de hors this weakness.8it is

the duty of the prosecution to prove the accuseds guilt. It is the golden thread in the web of

the English Criminal Jurisprudence and it is still the basic principle of our criminal law.As

observed by his Lordship Sinha.J.,(as he then was) in C.S.D. Swami v. State9:it is the

established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always lies on the prosecution

to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged and that the burden never shifts on to the

accused to disprove the charge framed against him.10

It is not fior the accused to prove his

innocence. It is always for the prosecution to bring out evidence or circumstances to prove

the guilt of the accused person.11

It is well settled that the burden on the accused is not as

onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its

case beyond a reasonable doubt , the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere

preponderance of probability.12

Falsity of the defence may be by circumstance, sometimes a strong circumstance, to be taken

into consideration in establishing the guilt of the accused but conviction cannot be based only

71999 Supp (2) SCC 228

8VithobaCamproMangueshkar v. State ,A.I.R. 1967 Goa 18 at p.21:1967 Cr.L.J.191

9A.I.R 1960 S.C.7

10

See ChackoMathai v. State of Kerela ,A.I.R.1964 Ker. 222 at p.224:1963 K.L.T 450

1963)1 Ker.45811ShangarasinghLadha Singh v. State ,A.I.R 1964 Punj.400 at p.4011964)2 Cr.L.J.338

12Pratapv.State of Uttar Pradesh ,A.I.R 1976 S.C 966 at p.969


15/18

on the falsity of defence. It is always for the prosecution to prove its case and this may be by

adducing either positive evidence or by establishing such circumstances against the accused

that the Court is driven to the conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who

could be guilty of the crime.13

It is not for him, who is free and who has not transgressed the law, to show why he should

remain free and why his freedom should not be qualified;it is for him who wishes to take

away that freedom or wishes to qualify it, to establish circumstances which, by the force of

law, would operate either in defeasance of, or in derogation of, that freedom.14

The nature of burden of proof that lies on the prosecution was considered in the case ofSarju

Prasad v. State of Bihar.15

It was held by the Supreme Court that where the accused person

caused an injury to the complainant with a knife in a vital region but no vital organ was cut,

the act of the accused person would not by itself be sufficient to take his case out of the

purview of Sec.307, I.P.C.,but in order to bring the offence home to the accused , the

prosecution must establish that his intention or knowledge was one of the three kinds as

mentioned in Sec.300 ,I.P.C. IT was further held that the State of mind of the accused had to

be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including motive which would be a relevant

circumstance.

From what has been stated above, it is abundantly clear that the mere circumstance that a

knife had been used as a weapon of attack on vital part of the body as in Sarju Prasads

Case,16

or a firearm was used to cause injuries to the victim17

would not ne sufficient to

establish that the accused had commited an offence punishable under Sec.307,I.P.C.Further

evidence has to be led by the prosecution to establish the intention of the accused to cause

death or his knowledge as envisaged under Sec.300.I.P.C.The burden of proof is on the

prosecution and not on the Accused.

The cardinal principle to be observed in the trial of a criminal case is that the accused should

always be considered to be an innocent person till the criminal acts alleged against him are

affirmatively and satisfactorily proved. This presumption of innocence continues all

throughout the trial and till the disposal of the case in the final court of Appeal. The approach

13Ganguram v. State of Rajasthan , 1964 Raj .L.W 279 at p. 284

14I.I.R.9 All 460

15

A.I.R 1965 S.C 84316Ibid

17Vide Sec.324,I.P.C


16/18

of the Court of Appeal should be therefore to assess the entire evidence and the materials

before him to see if the case against the accused has been affirmatively proved beyond all

reasonable doubts.

Burden Of Proof in Civil Cases

The plaintiff has the right to begin unless where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the

plaintiff and contents that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the

defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case,

the defendant has the right to begin. The other party shall then state his case and produce his

evidence, if any, and may then address the court generally on the whole case. Where there are

several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party

beginning may, at his option, either produce evidences on those issues or reserve it by way of

answer to evidence produced by the other party. In the latter case, the party beginning may

produce evidences on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the

other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning. The

party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. However, where

the party beginning elects, in any such case, to adduce, in the first instance, evidence on all

the issues, he will not be entitled to call fresh evidence to rebut the evidence adduced

subsequently by the opponent, on the issues as to which the burden of proof lay upon such

opponent. In other words, he cannot split the case. In a case in which the burden of proof on

all issues lies on the party beginning, he must adduce all the evidences in the first instance, a

prima facie case, and after the case has been shaken by the defendants evidence, call fresh

evidence to confirm such a prima facie case.

In the matter of proof, in a civil case, a defendant cannot take up the same stand as an

accused in a criminal case. In civil case, unlike criminal ones, it cannot be said that the

benefit of reasonable doubt must necessarily go to defendant . Even the preponderance of

probabilities may serve as a good basis for decision. The Supreme Court has held that acivil

case involving allegation of charges of criminal or fraudulent character insistence on proving

charges clearly not beyond reasonable doubt is wrong. In a tort action for malicious

prosecution , the plaintiff failed to prove that a criminal complaint was lodged against

without any reasonable cause . His suit failed


17/18

Deposit of money in wifes name does not amount to gift. It is a resulting trust . If anybody

says it was a gift he must prove it .

Where the question was of proving corrupt practice of undue influence under Representation

of the People Act , 1951, the supreme court said There is no ritualistic formula nor a cut and

dried test to lay down as to how a charge of undue influence but if all the circumstances taken

together led to irresistible interference that the voters were pressurised , threatened or

assaulted at insistence of either candidate , that should be sufficient to vitiate the election

while insisting on standard of strict proof , the Court should not extend or stretch this

doctrine to such an extend as to make it well knigh impossible to prove an allegation of

corrupt practice, Such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and

sacrosanct object of the act in maintain purity of electrol process Where an assessee of

property tax pleaded that the contractual rent should not be regarded as standard rent and that

therefore rateable value had not been properly fixed, the onus of proof was on the assessee.

Where a person claiming tenancy produced a certified copy of admission of his tenancy

given by landlord, burden of proof lay to landlord to disapprove .In determining whether a

temple/trust is public or private the burden of proof lies with the person asserting that the

temple/trust is private.

In a claim of damages for breach of contract, the burden is on the complainant to show the

basis on which the damages claimed by him have been quantified.

Conclusion

Burden of proof is finally states about the aspect wherein the person who says need to prove

the fact or rather one who alleges needs to prove the same. This has been beneficial in many

ways as it helps the other side to understand the alligations on him/her without having the

sole and the major burden of disapproving it. It has been adapted by the Indian Legal System

in a very successful way till this date.


18/18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The Law of Evidence, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Eastern BookHouse

2. Law of Evidence ,Vepa P. Sarathi3. www.wikipedia.com4. www.britanica.com5. www.worldlii.com6. www.westlaw.com7. www.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com8. www.legal-explanations.com
http://www.wikipedia.com/http://www.wikipedia.com/http://www.britanica.com/http://www.britanica.com/http://www.worldlii.com/http://www.worldlii.com/http://www.westlaw.com/http://www.westlaw.com/http://www.westlaw.com/http://www.worldlii.com/http://www.britanica.com/http://www.wikipedia.com/

hsp project

Documents