Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 101: Burden of proof
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime. 1. See now the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Pt. VI, Ch. VI.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 101
-
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose.
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Mahakali Sujatha v. The Branch Manager, Future Generali
The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The controversy in the…
-
Suman L. Shah v. The Custodian & Ors.
There were questionable transactions between the appellants and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2 (notified party). Whether the Special Court committed manifest error in facts…
-
Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
The High Court affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court holding appellant-hus band guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s.302 of the IPC alongwith the offence punishable u/s. 498A…
- Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others
- Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan
- Gopi @ Goverdhannath (D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Sri Ballabh Vyas
- Hamid Ali Khan (D) Through Lrs. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc.
- Rathnamma & Ors. v. Sujathamma & Ors.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash Singh and Others
- Chairman, Board of Trustee, Sri Ram Mandir Jagtial Karimnagar District, A.P v. S. Rajyalaxmi (Dead) & Ors.
- Union of India v. Rina Devi
- Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan
- Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana