The Burden Of Proof MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for The Burden Of Proof - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Section 107

Key Points 

• Section 107 – Burden of proving that a person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years:
  • This section incorporates the principle of presumption of survivorship.
  • It states that when the question is whether a person is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within 30 years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.
• Related Principle – Section 108:
  • While Section 107 presumes life, Section 108 presumes death if a person has not been heard of for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him.
  • So, Section 107 = Presumption of life, Section 108 = Presumption of death.
• Presumption of Survivorship:
  • In cases where two or more persons die in circumstances where it is not possible to determine who died first, the law may apply presumptions based on age, strength, etc. — though this specific survivorship principle is generally guided by succession laws, it finds procedural application starting in Section 107 of the Evidence Act.

Additional Information

• Section 106: Deals with the burden of proving facts especially within knowledge — not about survivorship.
• Section 108: Deals with presumption of death, not survivorship.
• Section 109: Deals with relationship presumption — when one person is shown to be related to another, the court presumes the existence of the usual relationship.

The correct answer is Section 106

Key Points

• Section 106: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
• In this case:
  • Whether ‘A’ had a ticket or not is a fact especially within his own knowledge, not the prosecution’s.
  • The railway authority can prove that he was found traveling without producing a ticket, but ‘A’ alone knows whether he actually had one or not. Hence, the burden of proving he had a valid ticket lies on ‘A’, as per Section 106.

Additional Information

• Section 102: Deals with general rule about burden of proof — lies on the party who would fail if no evidence is given.
• Section 107: Concerns the presumption of a person being alive if alive within the last 30 years.
• Section 108: Applies when a person is not heard of for seven years, then presumption of death arises.

The correct answer is presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.

Key Points

• Case: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1324
• In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of abetment of suicide of a married woman under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and the corresponding presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Section 113A of the Evidence Act provides that where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that her husband or his relatives had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that her husband or his relatives have abetted such suicide.
• The Court in this case discussed:
  • The cruelty inflicted on the deceased.
  • The proximity of the cruelty to the incident of suicide.
  • The applicability of presumption under Section 113A.

​

Additional Information

• Presumption as to dowry death That would involve Section 113B Evidence Act — not the main issue here.
• Presumption as to legitimacy Related to Section 112 Evidence Act — not applicable.
• Presumption as to rape No connection to rape presumption in this case.

The correct answer is 1986

Key Points

• Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • This section deals with the presumption of dowry death.
  • It states that if a woman dies within 7 years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry, the court shall presume that it is a dowry death.
• Introduced by:
  • The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 added Section 113-B to the Indian Evidence Act.
• Purpose:
  • To strengthen the legal framework against dowry-related harassment and deaths.
  • It shifts the burden of proof to the husband and his relatives once certain conditions are met.
• Connected Provisions:
  • It complements Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines dowry death as a specific criminal offence.

Additional Information

• Option 1. 1983: This amendment introduced Section 498-A IPC, dealing with cruelty by husband or relatives—not Section 113-B.
• Option 2. 1984: No significant amendment to the Indian Evidence Act regarding dowry death occurred in this year.
• Option 3. 2000: This is too recent; Section 113-B was already in place by then.

The correct answer is dying declaration.

Key Points

• A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, explaining the circumstances that led to their death.
• It is considered valid evidence in a court of law under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The rationale for admitting such statements is the belief that a person on their deathbed would not lie, as they are aware of their impending death.
• The declaration can be oral, written, or even through gestures and signs, provided it is deemed clear and unambiguous.
• A dying declaration does not require corroboration if it is found to be true and reliable by the court.

Additional Information

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The legal framework governing the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, including dying declarations.
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: Allows the admission of a dying declaration as evidence in cases where the cause of death is in question.
• Credibility of a Dying Declaration: Courts assess the reliability of the statement based on the condition of the deceased and the clarity of the declaration.
• Recording of a Dying Declaration: Ideally, a magistrate records the declaration, but it can also be recorded by a doctor or any person present, depending on the situation.
• Exceptions: If a dying declaration is inconsistent or influenced by external factors, it may lose its evidentiary value in court.

The correct answer is Option 1

Key Points

•  Section 110 of the Evidence Act incorporates the principle that Possession is a prima facie proof of ownership.
• It is to be noted that this principle does not apply when possession is obtained by fraud or force
• According to this section when a person is shown to be in possession of any property, the presumption is that he is the owner of that property.
• If anybody denies his ownership, burden lies on him to prove that he is not the owner of the property.
• Example: A is in possession of a cycle. В claims the cycle as his, В has to prove that he purchased it and burden lies on B.

The correct answer is option 2Key Points

• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, establishes the principle of burden of proof in legal proceedings.
• It states that whoever asserts a legal right or liability based on certain facts must prove the existence of those facts.
• This means that the burden of proving the existence of a fact lies on the party who asserts it.
• Additionally, the section emphasizes that the burden of proof never shifts from the party who initially bears it, regardless of the stage of the legal proceedings. In essence, it is the responsibility of the party making a claim to provide evidence to support that claim throughout the proceedings.

The correct answer is option 2.

Key Points

•  In a criminal case, under the Indian Evidence Act, as well as within the broader legal principles shared by many jurisdictions, the primary burden to prove a fact or the guilt of the accused rests upon the prosecution.
• This concept adheres to the foundational legal principle that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.
• The prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the highest standard of proof in the legal system.
• Moreover, while the initial burden of producing evidence and establishing the crime falls on the prosecution, there can be instances where this burden may shift slightly.
• For example, once the prosecution establishes facts that tend to prove an element of a crime, the defendant might then have the burden to raise a reasonable doubt about these claims, though not necessarily disprove them entirely.
• This dynamic underlines the essence of the adversarial system, wherein both parties—prosecution and defense—play significant roles in presenting and challenging the evidence before the court.

The correct option is  Statement A.

Key Points

• Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. 
• It states:
  • "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 shown that she had committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
  • Explanation—For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
• Section 113-A does not alter the burden of proof in criminal cases. 
• The prosecution still needs to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• However, once the prosecution establishes that the conditions specified in Section 113-A are met (such as cruelty by the husband or relatives within seven years of marriage), a presumption arises that the suicide was abetted by the husband or the relatives, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to prove his innocence. 
• This does not mean that the prosecution is relieved of its duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; it simply means that once certain conditions are met, the accused must rebut the presumption of guilt.

The correct answer is dying declaration.

Key Points

• A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, explaining the circumstances that led to their death.
• It is considered valid evidence in a court of law under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The rationale for admitting such statements is the belief that a person on their deathbed would not lie, as they are aware of their impending death.
• The declaration can be oral, written, or even through gestures and signs, provided it is deemed clear and unambiguous.
• A dying declaration does not require corroboration if it is found to be true and reliable by the court.

Additional Information

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The legal framework governing the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, including dying declarations.
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: Allows the admission of a dying declaration as evidence in cases where the cause of death is in question.
• Credibility of a Dying Declaration: Courts assess the reliability of the statement based on the condition of the deceased and the clarity of the declaration.
• Recording of a Dying Declaration: Ideally, a magistrate records the declaration, but it can also be recorded by a doctor or any person present, depending on the situation.
• Exceptions: If a dying declaration is inconsistent or influenced by external factors, it may lose its evidentiary value in court.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points

• In a trial, while explaining any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, an accused of committing murder states that due to grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of the power of self-control and thus, gave a single lathi blow to A, causing his death. The burden to prove grave and sudden provocation is on the accused.

Additional Information Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act

•  When an accused is charged with criminal conduct, the burden of proof is placed on the accused to establish the circumstances that gave rise to the accusation under any general exceptions provided by the Indian Penal Code or any other particular legislation.
• Under this Section, the prosecution's duty is limited to establishing the accused's guilt; once that is established, the burden transfers to the accused, who has the advantage of relying on general exceptions to the IPC or Criminal Procedure Code.

Illustration:- 

• (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
• (b) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.

The correct answer is : (1) and (2)

Key Points113A. 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 shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

The correct answer is option 3.

Key Points

•  Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act relates to the legitimacy of a child born during wedlock.
• The law presumes that if a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty (280) days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, it is conclusive proof of its legitimacy unless it can be proven that the parties to the marriage did not have any access to one another.
• The only exception under the law is non-access between the parties. This “non-access” refers to the non-existence of opportunities for sexual intercourse. 

Additional Information

•  Section 4 of the Act “Conclusive proof”.––When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
• Children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously before a Court of Law. This is an essential attribute of the right to privacy", the bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna observed in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122.

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points

• Section 107 of Indian Evidence Act applies when there is a question about whether a person is alive or dead.
• If it is established that the person in question was alive within the thirty years preceding the inquiry, the burden of proving that the person is now dead falls upon the person making the claim of death.
• The burden of proving death is on the person who affirms or asserts that the individual is no longer alive.
• Section 107 is, however, subject to section 108, wherein if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person so asserting.

Additional Information

• ​The burden of proof refers to the legal requirement or responsibility of the parties to establish the facts that will assist the court in reaching a decision in their favour.
• Therefore, the duty to prove a fact in a lawsuit is known as the Burden of Proof.
• Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, sections 101 to 103 deal with the burden of proof in general, whereas sections 104 to 106 deal with the situation where the burden of proof is placed on a specific individual.

The correct option is Option 3.

Key Points

• Section 102: On whom burden of proof lies.
  • 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.
• Illustration:-
  • ​A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
  • A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.

Additional Information

• Section 101: Burden of proof
• Section 103: Burden of proof as to particular fact.
• Section 104: Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.