May Presume, Shall Presume and Conclusive Proof

This article has been written by Manpreet Kaur from Lovely Professional University, Phagwara

Introduction:

In general, it is necessary to prove facts in the court as per the principles laid down in the Evidence Act. Without proper proof, the court will not accept any facts. However, there are certain circumstances under which the court may presume certain facts, even if they are not called for in evidence. Such presumed facts are referred to as presumptions. A presumption is an inference about a fact based on other known facts.

In the law of evidence, a presumption is an inference, either positive or negative, that a fact exists. It is determined by the judicial body through the process of probable reasoning regarding the truth that has been either judicially noticed, admitted, or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the court.

According to the ruling in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets 2SCC 513, a presumption just establishes a prima facie case for the party that benefits from it. It is not proof in and of itself.

In the legal system, presumptions are essential because they provide a systematic framework for interpreting specific facts based on specific circumstances. Three core concepts in evidence law—”may presume,” “shall presume,” and “conclusive proof”—control presumptions. The aim of this project is to analyze these concept by looking at their definitions, implications and relevant provision under the Indian Evidence Act.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948:

Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stated in Paris, declares that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the law in a public trial. To convince a trial court that an accused person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must present conclusive and convincing evidence. In other words, the presumption of innocence can only be overcome by proof of explicit, reasonable doubt.

Merriam Webster View:

Merriam Webster defines presumption as “an act of accepting that something is true until it is proved not to be true and the willingness to believe.” It is also equivalent to having the belief that something is true even when it hasn’t been proven. The presumption of innocence, which is more clearly defined as a legal right, is the primary principle of criminal jurisprudence in Indian law.

Legal Maxim:

“ Ei cumbit Probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” is the legal maxim which asserts “Proof lies on him who asserts and not on him who denies. The prosecution has the burden of proof to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. This principle was first mentioned by Lord Chancellor Sankey in Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, except in cases where the defense of insanity or any statutory exemption applies.

Section 4 of Indian Evidence act:

Section 4 of evidence act provide the definition of may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof.

May presume: May presume is a condition where the court may exercise its discretionary power to presume any or all facts and acknowledge that they have been proven, or it may request supporting documentation to verify or reaffirm the presumption that the court has established.

According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, any fact or set of facts may be considered proven until proven untrue. It is important to note that “may presume” refers to a rebuttable presumption and is not a branch of jurisprudence.

Illustration:

Court may presume innocence of accused until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by prosecution.

If a party fails to produce evidence that they could and should have produced, the court may presume that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party.

Case laws:

(i) State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragjibhai Patel (1980): This case established the presumption of guilt in cases where an accused person is discovered in possession of stolen property soon after the theft. By presenting a strong explanation for ownership, one can rebut the presumption.

(ii) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1978): This case clarified the Indian Evidence Act’s Section 113A’s presumption of abatement of suicide. The court decided that the presumption might start when two things were proven true: (a) the woman killed herself within seven years of getting married, and (b) she was mistreated by her husband or in-laws. The defense may rebut the presumption nevertheless, as it is not conclusive.

Shall Presume: Whereas, shall presume refers to a strong assertion or intention to determine any fact. The “Shall Presume” principle is laid out in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. It states that the court has to presume facts or groups of facts and will consider them proved until rebutted by the opposing party. The court does not have any discretion in applying this presumption. According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, the idea of “shall presume” is a branch of jurisprudence and may also be referred to as “presumption of law,” “artificial presumption,” “obligatory presumption,” or “rebuttable presumption of law.”

Illustration:

(i) Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act:  According to this provision, “Everything of which the court is entitled to take judicial notice may be assumed without proof.” Any fact (such as locations or historical events) that the court can determine without formal evidence in the case shall be presumed to be true.

(ii) The court will assume that witness testimonies are credible if they corroborate an essential issue.

(iii) The court shall presume that a contract entered into under stress or undue influence is void unless the other party can show that they gave their free and informed acceptance.

Case laws:

(i)Hiralal Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2012): This case involved Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, which states that if a party refuses to produce a document within their control, the court shall presume the document would be unfavorable to them. The court held that this presumption is not conclusive and can be rebutted by providing a satisfactory explanation for non-production, emphasizing the importance of context and fairness.

(ii)Ranganath v. Lakshmi (2002): This case revolved around Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which shall presume a child born during a valid marriage to be the legitimate child of the husband. The court emphasized the rebuttable nature of this presumption, allowing for evidence in cases of non-access or impossibility of fatherhood.

Conclusive proof: Conclusive Presumptions/Proofs: Although this is one of the strongest presumptions a court may make, the court also feels that these presumptions are made for the welfare or raising of society rather than only on the grounds of logic. The facts presumed under conclusive proof cannot be contested, even if the presumption is challenged based on conclusive proof. This is because the law has absolute authority over conclusive proofs and will not permit any proofs that contradict the presumption. This is the strongest type of presumption now in use, and the most significant laws about the irrebuttable form of presumptions, or conclusive presumption, are found in Sections 41, 112, and 113 of the Evidence Act and S. 82 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusive proof is defined broadly as a situation in which, as indicated by this Act, once one fact is proven, the other facts or conditions become conclusive proof of another. If one element of the case is established beyond a reasonable doubt, the court will consider all other facts to be proven. Additionally, the court will not accept any evidence that contradicts the other facts if they are established based solely on the proof of one fact.

Illustration:

(i) A clear and voluntary confession by the accused admitting to committing the crime can be conclusive proof of guilt, eliminating the need for other evidence.

(ii) Matching unique fingerprints found at the crime scene to the suspect can be conclusive proof of their presence, assuming proper collection and chain of custody protocols are followed.

(iii)  A and B got married on June 1st. After leaving the house for work six months later, the husband found out that his wife was pregnant. He divorced her and filed for bankruptcy, arguing that he should not have to pay damages to either his wife or his illegitimate son. Additionally, he clarifies that he never fully committed to his marriage because he departed for work just one day after getting married. However, because the son was with his wife for at least a day, the court will in this case assume that the son is legitimate. The court will not accept any evidence that contradicts the conclusive proof, even if the son offers probative evidence.

Case laws:

(i)Rajesh Narain Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005): In this case, eyewitness testimony served as the primary source of proof. The standards for determining a witness’s credibility, which include elements like consistency, lack of bias, and supporting evidence, were restated by the court. The ruling emphasizes how crucial it is to assess eyewitness testimony carefully before giving it conclusive weight.

(ii)Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. Maya Devi (2001): Video recordings can now be considered conclusive evidence in sexual assault prosecutions because of this case’s precedent. The court emphasized the significance of a good chain of custody and forensic investigation to assure authenticity while acknowledging the possibility of technological manipulation.

General Classification of Presumption:

In the common law system, presumptions were only divided into two categories:

  1. Presumption of facts
  2. Presumption of laws
  3. Presumption of facts: Presumptions of facts are claims that can be naturally and logically inferred from facts in the course of ordinary human behavior. They are also known as material or natural assumptions. Natural presumptions are instances of circumstantial evidence that enable easy inferences from other evidence. This is considered beneficial in the legal system as it helps in the apprehension of lawbreakers or society members who conflict with the law. However, most of the time, natural assumptions can be rebutted.

Several sections in the Indian Evidence Act, including Sections 86–88, 90, 113A, and 113 B, express natural presumption clearly. One of the most significant provisions of this Act’s presumptions is found in Sections 113A and 113B. Other provisions include Section 86, which discusses certified copies of foreign judicial records; Section 87, which expresses the presumption of books, maps, and charts; Section 88, which deals with the presumption related to telegrams; and Section 90, which deals with documents older than thirty years. Additionally, Section 113 A addresses a serious crime, namely the presumption of a married woman’s suicide, and Section 113 B deals with the presumption regarding dowry death.

Section 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman: When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband, and it is demonstrated that she killed herself within seven years of getting married and that her husband or that relative had cruelly treated her, the court may assume, taking into account all the other facts of the case, that the suicide had been encouraged by her husband or that relative.

‘May presume’ in Section 113-A, the phrase “may presume” refers to a Section 4 presumption of fact. These presumptions involve “natural inferences which the ‘common flow of natural events,’ human action, and public and private business suggest to us.” These are the kinds of presumption

In Nilakantha Pati v. State of Orissa, the accused wed the victim in April 1982 and was paid a dowry as a consequence. But afterward, the accused decided to buy a house, and he asked the victim’s parents for Rs 70,000. When she couldn’t get the money, she was tormented until she died in 1986. The accused supported his claims with reasonable arguments and logic; hence, the court found that the presumption was rebuttable. Because the accused’s arguments were sufficiently significant, he was found not guilty under Section 113A. The High Court states that the presumption established in this case is rebuttable and that it may be raised if the case’s facts support the meaning or intent of the relevant legislative provisions. Additionally, in this instance, the accused refuted all of the court’s presumptions; therefore, he was released.”

Presumption of law:

Artificial presumptions based on the rule of law are known as presumptions of law. The judge cannot refuse to make the presumption as they are required. There are two types of them.

There are two types of legal presumptions: rebuttable and irrebuttable.

Rebuttable presumption: These presumptions are predicated on certain legal principles that alone establish a prima facie case. It refers to situations where the other party has the burden of proof. For instance, a kid born into a lawful marriage is believed to be a genuine child and a man is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Example: 1 Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage covered under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act.

2 Presumption as to dowry death within seven years of marriage covered under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

3 Birth during the marriage is the conclusive proof of legitimacy covered under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Irrebuttable presumption: According to the law of evidence, an irrebuttable presumption of law is conclusive evidence. Legal presumptions that cannot be rebutted by evidence demonstrating a different fact are known as irrebuttable presumptions. Take Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code as an example. Sections 115–117 of the Evidence Act provide immunity from criminal prosecution for children under the age of seven.

In Shanti v. State of Haryana, the bride’s parents complained about the lack of dowry when they first saw her and were barred from entering the home by her husband’s in-laws. She was discovered deceased not long after the incident. Owing to the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the Section 113B presumption, one of the in-laws received a sentence of one year in jail for causing dowry death.

As per the ruling in Baijnath & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh by the Supreme Court.

One of the prerequisites for dowry death under Section 304B of the Penal Code is that the woman must have experienced cruelty from her husband or his family members shortly before she passed away. To establish this requirement, the prosecution must demonstrate a link between the victim’s death and the husband’s act of cruelty. The court would consider the case under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act only if the relationship is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Example: The “presumption of sanity” is a legal term that pertains to the mental state of a defendant in a criminal trial. Until proven otherwise, the court assumes that all individuals are mentally stable and capable of managing their own affairs.

Similarly, the “presumption of constitutionality” is a legal principle that applies to all laws, ordinances, rules, policies, and other government documents. These documents are presumed to conform to the Constitution and help achieve its objectives. However, if someone interprets these statutes in a manner that violates the Constitution, they must present evidence to support their interpretation.

In the case of Balambal v. Kannammal, the court determined that the presumption of death could only be used if it could be demonstrated that the named person had died or had never been in the first place. It further found that no one could use the presumption to create a death record of the named person.

What is ‘Differentiate Between May Presume’, ‘Shall Presume’ And ‘Conclusive Proof’

May Presume:

1. The term “may assume” refers to the court’s discretionary power to assume a certain fact after another fact has been established. It is important to note that the court is not obligated to make the presumption.

2. For instance, Section 114 states that the court “may presume” that evidence within the control of a party but not given would have been unfavorable if it had been presented. In such a case, the court may infer that the concealed information was unfavorable and draw an adverse conclusion.

3. “May presume” suggests the probability of a decision but not its certainty.

4. “May presume” allows for the presentation of opposing evidence to rebut the assumed fact that was reached by discretionary inference.

5. “May presume” enables a conclusion from experience and reasonable probability.

6. The court can ignore the presumption of fact, however strong it is.

Shall Presume:

1. On the other hand, the term “shall presume” indicates that the court is required by law to assume the existence of the presumed fact after an essential fact has been proven

2. Example: Section 113 of the law provides a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the continuation of a lawful marriage unless there is contradictory evidence provided in court. Once a marriage is proved, the court is bound to assume its legality and has no discretion to argue otherwise.

3. “Shall presume” means that once a fundamental fact is established, assumptions must be made regardless of the probability.

4. Rebutting evidence may likewise override the required assumption under “shall presume.”.

5. “Shall presume” imposes specific presumptions based on established legal fiction that are irrelevant to actual probability.

6. The court cannot ignore the presumption law.

 Conclusive Proof:

1. conclusive proof, which means that the fact must be considered strongly demonstrated by the court, and it is not acceptable to debate it any further.

2. For example, in Section 108, after the signatures of the attesting witnesses are verified, the fact that they signed a document becomes conclusively proved and is no longer arguable.

3. The requirements for conclusive proof define the highest level of genuine certainty

4. But provisions about “conclusive proof” cannot be rebutted in any way.

5. To prove facts, conclusive proof requires evidentiary criteria that may be verified empirically.

Conclusion:

To conclude, principles for proving facts in the court has been laid down in the Evidence Act. Without proper proof, the court will not accept any facts. However, there are certain circumstances under which the court may presume certain facts, even if they are not called for in evidence.

Such presumed facts are referred to as presumptions.In the legal system, presumptions are essential because they provide a systematic framework for interpreting specific facts based on specific circumstances. Three core concepts in evidence law “may presume,” “shall presume,” and “conclusive proof”. On the other hand, the term “shall presume” indicates that the court is required by law to assume the existence of the presumed fact after an essential fact has been proven.

On the other hand, the term “shall presume” indicates that the court is required by law to assume the existence of the presumed fact after an essential fact has been proven. conclusive proof, which means that the fact must be considered strongly demonstrated by the court, and it is not acceptable to debate it any further.

Reference:

  1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/presump
  2. www.legalserviceindia.com/9250
  3. Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets 2SCC 513,
  4. Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462
  5. State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragjibhai Patel (1980)
  6. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1978)
  7. Hiralal Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2012)
  8. Ranganath v. Lakshmi (2002)
  9. Rajesh Narain Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005)
  10. Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. Maya Devi (2001)
  11. Nilakantha Pati v. State of Orissa,(1995 Cri LJ 2472)
  12. Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991 AIR 1226),
  13. Baijnath & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh(1966 AIR 220, 1966 SCR (1) 210)
  14. Balambal v. Kannammal,((1997) 1 MLJ 181)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q