Court may presume existence of certain facts
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations The Court may presume –– (a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;
(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it: –– as to illustration (a) –– a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business; as to illustration (b) ––A, a person of the highest character is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; as to illustration (b) –– a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable; as to illustration (c) –– A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under A’s influence; as to illustration (d) –– it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course; as to illustration (e) –– a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; as to illustration (f) –– the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; as to illustration (g) –– a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family;
as to illustration (h) –– a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; as to illustration (i) –– a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.
Section 114, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 119 Court may presume existence of certain facts 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.
-
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2006-10-11 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-4). Crl A 1341/2005. Combined already maps this CNR to IEA 114 / BSA 119. This pass adds IEA 106: when a murder is committed inside the house, s.106 puts a corresponding burden on the inmates to explain; silence is an additional link. Do not re-map IPC 302 (already filled). Map iea 106 / bsa 109.
On this section: s.114 lets the court presume facts in a domestic homicide which the accused is especially able to explain; a false story is an additional link.
-
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A matrimonial court cannot routinely order a DNA test of a child to prove a husband's allegations of adultery against the wife when there is no dispute regarding access during the period of conception. Furthermore, if a mother declines to subject her minor child to a DNA test in order to protect the child's identity, welfare, and privacy, no adverse inference of adultery can be drawn against her under Section 114 Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Discretionary power of the court to draw adverse inference, which was held inapplicable when a mother acts to protect her child's interests.
-
Dipanwita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial disputes where specific allegations of infidelity and adultery are levelled under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a court may direct DNA testing to establish or refute such allegations as a distinct legal issue from the question of legitimacy of a child born during the marriage. DNA testing is permissible when it is eminently needed and the court, after balancing the interests of all parties (including the child's welfare and the right to privacy), is satisfied that such testing is necessary for a just decision. The direction for DNA testing does not necessarily trigger the full rigours of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act's conclusive presumption, as the primary issue is infidelity, not legitimacy. However, the court must preserve the liberty of parties to comply or disregard the DNA test direction, with adverse inferences drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act in case of non-compliance, thereby protecting the child's presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 to the maximum extent possible.
On this section: Court's power to presume existence of facts; illustration (h) specifically cited regarding adverse inference from refusal to answer questions.
-
Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State(nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Possession of stolen ornaments of a deceased person recovered from an accused, even if unexplained and even though the accused was present in the house prior to the crime, does not conclusively prove the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC unless there is specific evidence establishing that the theft and murder occurred as part of the same transaction. The presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act, 1872 applies only to presumption of theft or receipt of stolen property, not to murder. A gap in time between when the accused was last seen leaving the premises and when the crime was discovered creates a significant margin during which the crime could have been committed by someone other than the accused. Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the offence.
On this section: Presumptions regarding facts; Illustration (a) specifically addresses presumption that person in possession of stolen property has received it from thief, but does not automatically establish guilt of murder
-
Khokan Giri @ Madhab vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act permits conviction based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and such conviction is not illegal per se, as a matter of judicial practice it is almost always unsafe to convict based on accomplice evidence alone. Section 114 Illustration (b) requires that an accomplice be corroborated in material particulars. Such corroboration must: (a) come from independent sources, (b) not be from another accomplice, and (c) connect the accused with the crime. In the present case, the High Court correctly examined extensive independent corroborative evidence - including eyewitness accounts, physical evidence (fingerprints, recovered stolen goods, property of appellant), forensic and medical reports, and expert opinions - that collectively established the appellant's participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction was safe and legally sound despite primary reliance on approver's evidence.
On this section: Presumes an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars; court used this to examine whether Raju Rao's testimony had sufficient independent corroboration
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Presumption regarding accomplice credibility - Court may presume accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars; rule of prudence
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must establish all five essential ingredients with specific emphasis on proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand 'soon before her death'. The expression 'soon before her death' requires a proximity test with a material temporal and causal link (proximate and live link) between the alleged harassment and the death. Without clear and credible evidence of such harassment inflicted shortly before death, the conviction cannot be sustained even if the death occurs within seven years of marriage and the victim dies by abnormal circumstances. Evidence from interested witnesses (close family members) alone, without independent corroboration despite opportunity to secure such corroboration, is insufficient to discharge the prosecution's burden of proof. The absence of conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) in the same case further supports reasonable doubt regarding the essential ingredient of dowry-related harassment.
On this section: Referenced for understanding the temporal scope of 'soon before' by analogy to possession of stolen goods; helps establish the principle that 'soon before' implies temporal proximity without a fixed period.
-
D. Velayutham vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Anti-Corruption Prosecutions Involving Trap Cases Where Co-Accused Are Jointly Charged And One Successfully Avoids Direct Entrapment While The Other Is Caught Red-Handed, The Accused Who Evaded The Trap Can Still Be Convicted Through A Combination Of Accomplice Testimony (With Proper Corroboration), Circumstantial Evidence, And The Doctrine Of Constructive Receipt Of Bribes. The Absence Of An Accused From The Physical Location Of Bribe-Taking Does Not Shield Him From Conviction If The Totality Of Evidence Demonstrates His Role As The Mastermind And Beneficiary Of The Illegal Gratification. Courts Are Not To Presume That Trap/Decoy Witnesses Are Inherently Interested Or Partisan; Rather, The Burden Lies On The Defence To Establish Motive And Interest Through Specific Evidence. The Corroboration Of Accomplice Evidence Is A Matter Of Prudential Discretion Varying With Case Facts, Not An Absolute Legal Requirement.
On this section: Applied As Rule Of Prudence That Accomplice Evidence Should Be Corroborated In Material Aspects Before Convicting Accused; Court Applied This Principle To Test Accomplice Evidence Against Circumstantial Evidence
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Court may presume accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars
-
Gian Chand vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once possession of contraband articles is established in a drug trafficking case, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 operate against the accused, presuming conscious possession and knowledge of the contraband. The burden thereupon shifts to the accused to prove that he had no knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. The absence of independent witnesses does not render police testimony unreliable if such testimony is found to be cogent, convincing, credible and reliable upon scrutiny. The failure to examine incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not vitiate the trial unless material prejudice to the accused is demonstrated. In cases of narcotics possession, the facts regarding how the contraband came to be in the vehicle fall within the special knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
On this section: Presumption that every official act done by police was regularly performed; requires rebuttal by accused
-
Rohtash Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of circumstantial evidence involving murder, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that is conclusive in nature and excludes all possible hypotheses except the guilt of the accused. When an accused is last seen with the deceased victim shortly before the death and fails to furnish any explanation for the death, coupled with other incriminating circumstances such as possession of the victim's property after death, making confessions to relatives, and adopting suspicious conduct (such as using a fictitious name and attempting suicide), the totality of such circumstances forms a sufficiently complete chain to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of eyewitnesses and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies on trivial matters. The prosecution is not obligated to examine all cited witnesses; it may exercise prosecutorial discretion in selecting witnesses, provided the core narrative is established through reliable evidence that has been carefully scrutinized for credibility and truthfulness.
On this section: Presumption regarding non-production of evidence; discussed extensively regarding the inference to be drawn when a party withholds evidence that could be produced and if produced would be unfavourable to the party withholding it
-
Ram Deo Prasad vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the conviction of the appellant under sections 376 and 302 IPC is justified based on the circumstantial evidence that he was found in possession of and carrying the victim shortly after she was brutally abused, the death sentence cannot be confirmed in view of the significant deficiencies in investigation, charge framing, trial procedure (specifically the inadequate section 313 examination), the reliance on circumstantial evidence without forensic corroboration, the quality limitations of eyewitness identification in difficult conditions (fog and darkness), and the appellant's lack of adequate legal representation. The quality and nature of evidence available, procedural lapses, and the circumstances of the accused are relevant factors in death penalty sentencing alongside the nature of the offence. Therefore, the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment of not less than 18 years actual imprisonment.
On this section: General principle that court can draw inferences when an accused found in possession of recently stolen goods or with victim after crime can be presumed guilty of the offence
-
Shudhakar vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a deceased makes multiple contradictory dying declarations in a criminal case, the court must examine each declaration independently on its own merit. The declaration which is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and is shown to be voluntary, truthful, made in conscious state of mind without tutoring or prompting, should be preferred over other contradictory declarations. A dying declaration, if found reliable and corroborated by substantial other evidence, can form the sole basis of criminal conviction without additional corroboration, and the absence of doctor's fitness certificate is not fatal if the person recording the declaration certifies that the deceased was in fit mental state. However, when one declaration is suspicious, made under duress or tutoring by interested parties, and is contradicted by medical and physical evidence, it should be rejected in favor of other declarations which stand corroborated by credible eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recoveries from place of occurrence.
On this section: Presumptions - the Court addressed the argument that adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution for not producing the first dying declaration, holding that this section only applies when evidence is withheld and not produced by any party.
-
State of Haryana vs DHANI
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution, which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. When the prosecution fails to produce eyewitness evidence, best evidence (such as CCTV footage), medical evidence, and forensic evidence despite their availability, and when the testimonies of witnesses are contradictory, hearsay, or hostile, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused must be acquitted and given the benefit of doubt, as wrongful conviction of an innocent person is far more serious than wrongful acquittal.
On this section: When best evidence is available but not produced, an adverse inference can be drawn against the party who should have produced it. The court applied this principle to the prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage.
-
KESHAV NATH vs STATE
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act takes a defence that the cheque was stolen or lost, the accused must establish this defence by cogent evidence and by demonstrating conduct consistent with that of a prudent person who would have immediately reported the theft/loss to police and his banker, sought return of the cheque, and taken appropriate legal action. Mere denial of liability or inconsistent statements regarding the defence are insufficient to rebut the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused and cannot be discharged by bare explanation or reasonable probability; it must be supported by proof that the court either believes to exist or considers so probable that a prudent man would act upon the supposition that it exists.
On this section: Presumptions of fact - Distinguished from presumptions of law; discretionary in nature and can be rebutted by reasonable explanation
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix's testimony in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and can sustain a conviction. A woman who is the victim of sexual assault stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Her evidence must be appreciated in the background of the entire case with heightened sensitivity. Threats and coercion negate any notion of consent, and a minor cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse regardless of her apparent willingness or voluntary accompaniment. The court must not allow infirmities in investigation to undermine the credibility of victim testimony when the evidence is otherwise reliable.
On this section: Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened - The court noted that the Evidence Act does not require corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony similar to accomplice testimony.
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.
Questions about Section 114
What have the courts held on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (11 Oct 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.114 lets the court presume facts in a domestic homicide which the accused is especially able to explain; a false story is an additional link. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 114 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 114, section 114 IEA, section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (11 Oct 2006).
What should I read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 119 (Court may presume existence of certain facts), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 114, 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.