SPPU Solved Question Papers
Law of Evidence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 3
Nov 2024 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 3 Law of Evidence Nov 2024 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 4 November 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Nov 2024 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Nov 2024 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Nov 2024 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 45 Marks
Q1)What is meant by Burden of Proof? Explain the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 relating to Burden of proof.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the meaning of burden of proof, and the two senses (legal burden and evidential burden); where the law sits (Chapter VII, sections 104 to 120 of the BSA; old sections 101 to 114A); the general rules in sections 104 to 107; the burden on the accused for exceptions (section 108); facts especially within knowledge (section 109); the special rules on life and death, relationships, ownership and good faith (sections 110 to 114); the statutory presumptions (sections 115 to 120); the standard of proof in civil and criminal cases; Woolmington, K. M. Nanavati, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan and Anil Rishi; a conclusion.
Introduction
Every case in court is a contest about facts. One side says a fact happened; the other denies it. The law must say who has to prove it. If neither side proves it, someone must lose. The burden of proof answers both questions.
Burden of proof means the duty of a party to prove a fact that he asserts. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with it. Section 104 of the BSA says that when a person is bound to prove a fact, "the burden of proof lies on that person".
The rules are in Chapter VII of the BSA, sections 104 to 120. They were sections 101 to 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
1. Two senses of burden of proof
The phrase is used in two senses.
- The legal burden. This is the burden of establishing a case as a whole. It is fixed by the pleadings and the law, and it never shifts. In a criminal trial it is always on the prosecution.
- The evidential burden (often called the onus). This is the burden of producing evidence on a particular fact at a particular stage. It shifts from one side to the other as the evidence comes in.
So when we say "the burden has shifted", we mean the evidential burden.
2. The general rules: sections 104 to 107
Section 104, the basic rule. Whoever wants the court to give judgment about a right or liability, based on facts he asserts, must prove those facts. If A wants B punished for a crime, A must prove that B committed it (illustration (a)).
Section 105, the test. The burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. If A sues B on a bond and B pleads fraud, A would win if no evidence were given, because the bond is admitted. So the burden of proving fraud is on B (illustration (b)).
Section 106, a particular fact. The burden of proving a particular fact lies on the person who wants the court to believe it. A law may place it on someone else. An accused who pleads an alibi must prove it (illustration).
Section 107, facts that make evidence admissible. A person who wants to give evidence of a fact must first prove any fact needed to make that evidence admissible. A man who wants to prove a dying declaration must first prove the death of the declarant (illustration (a)).
3. The burden on the accused: section 108
The general rule in criminal cases is that the prosecution proves everything. Section 108 is an exception.
An accused may claim that his case falls within a General Exception of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or within a special exception or proviso. The burden of proving it is then on him. The court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
- An accused who pleads unsoundness of mind must prove it (illustration (a)).
- An accused who pleads grave and sudden provocation must prove it (illustration (b)).
But the accused need not prove his plea beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough to show it on a preponderance of probabilities.
4. Facts especially within knowledge: section 109
When a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving it is on him. A man found travelling without a ticket must prove that he had one (illustration (b)).
This section does not relieve the prosecution of its burden. It applies only after the prosecution has proved facts from which an inference can be drawn. The accused must then explain facts that only he knows.
5. Special rules: sections 110 to 114
- Death within thirty years (section 110). If a man was alive within thirty years, the person who says he is dead must prove it.
- Not heard of for seven years (section 111). A man may not have been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him. The burden then shifts to the person who says he is alive.
- Relationships (section 112). People may have been acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent. The person who says they are not, or have ceased to be, must prove it.
- Ownership (section 113). A person in possession is presumed to be the owner. The person who says he is not the owner must prove it.
- Good faith (section 114). One party may stand in a position of active confidence towards the other, as an advocate does to a client. The burden of proving the good faith of their transaction is then on the party in confidence.
6. Statutory presumptions: sections 115 to 120
In some cases the law itself shifts the burden by a presumption.
- Certain offences in disturbed areas (section 115). A person may be shown to have been at a place where firearms or explosives were used against the forces. He is then presumed to have committed the listed offences.
- Abetment of suicide by a married woman (section 117). If she committed suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty, the court may presume abetment by her husband or his relatives.
- Dowry death (section 118). A woman may have been subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. The court shall then presume that the person who did so caused the dowry death.
- General presumptions (section 119). The court may presume facts likely to have happened in the common course of events. A man in possession of stolen goods soon after a theft may be presumed to be the thief or a receiver.
- Absence of consent in rape (section 120). This applies to a prosecution under section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. If intercourse is proved and the woman says she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
7. The standard of proof
The burden says who must prove. The standard says how much.
| Case | Standard |
|---|---|
| Civil case | Preponderance of probabilities |
| Criminal case, on the prosecution | Beyond reasonable doubt |
| Criminal case, on the accused (section 108) | Preponderance of probabilities |
8. The leading cases
Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462. Woolmington was tried for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the gun went off by accident. The judge told the jury that he was presumed guilty unless he proved the accident. The House of Lords quashed the conviction. It spoke of one golden thread seen throughout the web of the English criminal law. The prosecution must prove the prisoner's guilt. If, on the whole case, there is a reasonable doubt, the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. This is the root of the rule in India too.
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605. A naval officer shot his wife's lover. He said the shots went off accidentally in a struggle, and that there was grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove every ingredient of the offence, and that this burden never shifts. But when the accused relies on an exception, section 105 of the 1872 Act (now section 108) raises a presumption against him. He must rebut it, by his own evidence or by the prosecution's. The Court found that his plea of provocation failed. It upheld his conviction for murder.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681. A wife died at her husband's home. The family said she died of snakebite, but the post-mortem showed strangulation. The Supreme Court held that where a murder is committed in the privacy of a home, the prosecution's burden is of a lighter character. Under section 106 of the 1872 Act (now section 109), the inmates must explain how she died. A false explanation, or none, is a strong circumstance against them.
Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558. A seller sued to declare a sale deed forged. The trial court put the burden on the buyer to prove the deed genuine. The Supreme Court applied section 101 of the 1872 Act (now section 104). The burden lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. The seller, who said the deed was forged, had to prove it. The good faith rule (now section 114) applies only after a relationship of active confidence is proved.
9. Criticism
- Reverse burdens. Sections 115 to 120 shift the burden onto the accused in some offences. Critics say this weakens the presumption of innocence. The courts answer that the prosecution must still prove the basic facts first.
- Section 109 is easily misused. It cannot be used to make the accused prove his innocence. It applies only to facts truly within his special knowledge.
Conclusion
Conclusion. Burden of proof is the duty to prove the facts one asserts (section 104). It lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given (section 105). In criminal cases the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts (Woolmington, K. M. Nanavati). The accused bears a lighter burden only for exceptions (section 108) and for facts especially within his knowledge (section 109). Sections 110 to 120 add special rules and presumptions, such as those for dowry death and abetment of suicide. Together they make sure that the right party bears the risk of failing to prove a fact.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU LL.B. (Three Years) Semester 3 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.