Any case, regardless of its type, begins with the occurrence of specific events; the details of those occurrences are referred to as facts. The court must rule on particular legal issues, and it is then the burden of proof to support those decisions. Every legal action aims to determine specific rights or liabilities for that reason. These rights and obligations are directly related to the case's facts, which must be established in court in order to appease the judge.

The Evidence Act's Sections 101-111 address "who is to lead evidence and prove the case" and related topics. The term "Burden of Proof" refers to these guidelines. The burden of proof is merely a legal one. It basically implies that the person must establish the facts, and it must be done in accordance with the court's ruling, which may be favorable to him or to his opponent. The term "burden of proof" refers to this responsibility of proving; if the person bearing the burden of proof fails to produce any evidence, the burden of proof will be placed against him.

With the understanding that the best evidence must be presented to the court, the affected party, or the one who initiated the lawsuit, generally bears the burden of proof in the majority of situations. This does not imply that the burden of proof will always be discharged from the other side. The onus of proof in situations such as rape is on the accused to demonstrate his innocence. The burden of proof, however, is split into two categories: the burden of proof as a matter of law and the burden of proof associated with pleading, which is the responsibility of establishing one's case or proving all relevant facts.

The pleadings set it at the outset of the trial and it is resolved as a matter of law that doesn't change under any circumstances. The difficulty that now arises is how the burden of proof may be ascertained in any given situation. In fact, the answer to this question is directly related to section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that "the burden of proof in a suit or in a prosecution lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side."

Importance of Burden of Proof

"Whosoever 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," according to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, is required to bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is considered to rest with the individual who must establish the veracity of any claim. When compared to negative facts, affirmative or positive facts are typically easier to understand, support, and verify. The tenet of section 101 is that a party must establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the court to accept the facts and render a favorable decision.

Also in the case of Neelkantan v Mallika Begum 6 the tenant of a building claimed his protection from being evicted of the property. He contended that as the property was situated in slum area so Slum Area Act 1971 won't be applicable in this case. So in this case the burden to prove that the property was in slum area would be on the tenant.

Burden of Proof

The terms "onus of proof" and "burden of proof" must be distinguished carefully. The onus of proof normally rests on the party who is required by law to substantiate a claim, and it never changes in other situations. This continual shifting of the burden of proof occurs while the evidence is being evaluated. In criminal trials, the burden of proof shifts to the accused after the prosecution establishes that the defendant has committed the specific crime for which the accused is charged that is, once the accused may demonstrate that the defendant did not commit the crime in question and should not be punished accordingly.

Burden of Proof and Res Ipsa Loquitur

the concept of burden of proof is not restricted or static and hence it has several dimensions and changes its character based on the type of case. However in all actions of negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, to establish the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff, who alleges the defendant's negligence, must affirmatively prove it. He must prove on a balance of probabilities, the essentials of negligence, namely, the defendant owed him a legal duty to take care, the defendant committed breach of that duty to take care, and the breach resulted in damage to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to prove the above essentials, it is said that he failed to prove the defendant's negligence. There are certain circumstances, where it may not be possible for the plaintiff to prove the defendant's negligence, since the reason for the accident may completely be within the knowledge and control of the defendant.

It should not be difficult or detrimental for the plaintiff to obtain redress if they are unable to demonstrate the defendant's fault; in these situations, the plaintiff just needs to demonstrate the accident and not the defendant's negligence. The accident provides prima facie proof that the defendant's negligence resulted in the tort that forms the basis of the cause of action. The adage "res ipsa loquitur," which translates to "the thing speaks for itself," applies to this. Therefore, applying this adage to instances of carelessness has two consequences.

The first is that it may give rise to allegations of negligence, in which case the defendant would have to provide a plausible explanation for why the event happened in the first place without their negligence. In the event where the defendant provides information that demonstrates his lack of negligence, the inference of negligence will be refuted, and the plaintiff will need to present evidence showing the defendant did not behave with reasonable care. Thus, the onus of proof does not transfer to the accused. The plaintiff's action is unsuccessful if there is an equal chance that the defendant was negligent or not.

On the other hand, if res ispa loquitor is used, it may be able to reverse the burden of proof, meaning that the defendant would have to demonstrate that the loss or damage he caused was not the result of his negligence or carelessness. On the other hand, the court's job is to determine whether or not negligence occurred based on the evidence that has been presented. As a result, the defendant's position is the same as it would be if the plaintiff had shown concrete evidence that suggested carelessness.

Conclusion
The burden of proof is one of those crucial aspects of a case that cannot be disregarded or undervalued. Whatever the case type, the aforementioned idea will always be applicable. The burden of proof on a matter crucial to guilt in an offense perhaps interferes with the presumption of innocence the most, and its requirement necessitates the best defense. Although there may be significant differences between criminal and civil sanctions, the burden of proof always rests with the prevailing side, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the case. The burden of proof is established by the requirement that the person making the claim provide proof or evidence.

Written By: Akanksha