On whom burden of proof lies
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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. Illustrations (a) 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.
(b) 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.
Section 102, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 105 On whom burden of proof lies Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rangammal v. Kuppuswami
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2011-05-13. CA 562/2003. Panchal/Gyan Sudha Misra. DATE-CHECK flagged 2002-07-11 HC / 1951-02-24 sale-deed dates (false positive); body is the named 13 May 2011 reportable. In a partition suit the plaintiff who asserts title via a minor's sale deed must prove that fact; courts cannot shift the burden onto the defendant-minor. IEA 101 is already filled (Anil Rishi); this file isolates 102 (on whom burden of proof lies). Map iea 102 + BSA 105 successor. Do not pad 101.
On this section: The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given: a plaintiff asserting title through a minor's sale deed must prove it (Rangammal).
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Burden of proof in criminal cases; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It does not mean he was not mentally well. It means he was not physically well as Dharmalinga Mudaliar was suffering from jaundice. Therefore, the death of Dharmalinga Mudaliar, two days after the execution of Will does not create a cloud as per Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the person challenging the Will to prove that Dharmalinga Mudaliar was not in a fit state of mind. That is very hard to prove next to impossible. The Defendants had filed an Interlocutory Petition to compare the signature of Dharmalinga Mudaliar in Ex.A-1 and get an expert …
-
… The defendants dispute Ext.A11 and contended that Ext.A11 was never written by their father to the plaintiff. The first appellate court in the second round of litigation concluded that the defendants failed to disprove Ext.A11. This finding is apparently incorrect in the light of Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per Section 101, whoever desires the 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, the burden of proof lies on that …
-
… Therefore, in the present case the petitioner has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal after the respondents have led their evidence relating to existence of the Will. 16. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration Section 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "IEA"), which stipulates that the burden of proof in a suit lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all was produced on either side. In the present case, if no evidence is led on either side, there would be no proof of the alleged Will and …
Questions about Section 102
What have the courts held on Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (13 May 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given: a plaintiff asserting title through a minor's sale deed must prove it (Rangammal). Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 102, section 102 IEA, section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type indian evidence act 102 and evidence act 101 and 102. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (13 May 2011).
What should I read with Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 105 (On whom burden of proof lies), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 102, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.