Burden of proof as to particular fact
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with burden of proof as to particular fact. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Illustrations [(a)] A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
(b) B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
Section 103, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 106 Burden of proof as to particular fact Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass violence and mob culpability, conviction of an abettor (non-principal assailant) for murder under Section 302/109 IPC can be sustained based on ocular evidence of exhortation if: (1) At least 2-3 or a clear majority of credible witnesses consistently depose about the exhortation to the actual shooter (Masalti test); (2) The evidence of exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable, not merely suspicion or tendency to implicate; (3) The medical and ocular evidence is not materially contradictory; (4) The abettor does not discharge the burden of establishing alibi or contrary narrative through defense evidence; and (5) Even if an unlawful assembly with common object of murder is not established, individual liability for abetment through direct exhortation can still be sustained. Furthermore, an ante-dated and ante-timed FIR does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if the core facts are corroborated by immediate wireless information sent from the scene; however, death sentence is not appropriate for abetment in mass violence cases where the abettor is not the principal assailant.
On this section: Burden of proof on person wishing court to believe in fact's existence unless law otherwise provides; applied to require Anand Mohan to prove alibi
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence from multiple independent witnesses consistently establishes that an accused person exhorted another person to commit murder, and the exhortation is sufficient to instigate the act of murder, the accused can be held guilty of abetment of murder under Section 302/109 IPC even if the accused did not personally commit the act of murder. The test for conviction in such cases involving multiple offenders is that if the testimony is supported by 2-3 or more witnesses giving consistent account of the incident (Masalti test), conviction can be sustained. Medical evidence regarding bullet trajectory will not contradict trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence conclusively rules out the possibility of the circumstances described by eyewitnesses. In cases where FIR is suspected to be ante-dated and ante-timed, the court must carefully analyze the evidence supporting the prosecution case rather than discarding the entire prosecution version.
On this section: Burden of proof - Once prosecution proves Anand Mohan was at spot, burden shifts to him to prove he was elsewhere
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 is also true that the initial burden of proof that nomination paper of an elected candidate has wrongly been accepted is on the election petitioner. 30. In terms of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. 31. Furthermore, in relation to certain matters, the fact …
-
… Therefore, the Plaintiff had proved the Will through husband/P.W-1 and P.W-2, the scribe of Will under Ex.A-1 and P.W-3, the attesting witness. The claim made by the Defendants in the written statement that the Will is a forged one, it is for them under Sections 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the specific plea. The Defendant had attempted to prove the Will by sending the Will under Ex.A-1 and obtaining Expert opinion from the Forensic Department, but he had not furnished the document containing admitted signature of Dharmalinga Mudaliar. Just because Dharmalinga …
-
… Once the prosecution has proved the initial burden that the accused involved in the homicidal death of the deceased, the accused has to discharge the plea taken in view of the provisions of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. SHER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021 . At paragraph No.4, it has held as under: "4. When an accused pleads alibi , the burden is on him to prove it under Section 103 of the Evidence Act …
Questions about Section 103
What have the courts held on Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act?
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan (10 Jul 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Burden of proof on person wishing court to believe in fact's existence unless law otherwise provides; applied to require Anand Mohan to prove alibi. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 103 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 103, section 103 IEA, section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan (10 Jul 2012).
What should I read with Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 106 (Burden of proof as to particular fact), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 103, 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.