“May presume”
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with “May presume”. Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. “Shall presume”. –– Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. “Conclusive proof”. –– When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. CHAPTER II. –– OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS
Section 4, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 2 Definitions Close, with changes 68%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
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: Definitions of 'may presume', 'shall presume', and 'conclusive proof'.
-
Umashanker vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (relating to use, trafficking, and possession of counterfeit currency notes), the Crown bears an essential burden of affirmatively proving the mens rea element - specifically, that the accused 'knew or had reason to believe' that the currency notes were forged or counterfeit. Mere possession of counterfeit notes, or even their use in a transaction, cannot, without more, lead to a conviction; the prosecution must lead affirmative evidence establishing the accused's guilty knowledge or belief. A presumption of mens rea drawn solely from the fact that witnesses identified a note as counterfeit is not warranted under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. Courts must be cautious in applying these statutory provisions and must not extend them to punish unwary possessors or users. The absence of any specific questioning of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding his knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes further vitiates the conviction when the only piece of evidence relied upon is circumstantial (possession and use).
On this section: Concerns presumptions that may be drawn from facts; the Court found the trial court's presumption of mens rea under this section was unwarranted on the facts of the case
-
Rakhal Debnath vs State of West Bengl
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty in the form of dowry demands, jewelry pledging, and evidence of instigation by the husband through sustained harassment and illicit relationship with another woman, the court may presume that the husband abetted the suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 306 IPC. Such presumption is not irrebuttable, but when supported by consistent ocular evidence from multiple witnesses regarding the deceased's complaints and the circumstances demonstrating a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and suicide, the conviction stands. The postmortem medical evidence need not conclusively determine suicide as the cause of death; circumstantial evidence including physical findings at the scene (kerosene, burned materials), pattern of conduct by the husband, and the temporal proximity between harassment and death sufficiently establish guilt.
On this section: Definition of presumption - Court explained that presumption may regard fact as proved unless disproved, but remains rebuttable and requires consideration of all circumstances
-
Karshanbhai K Patel vs Satish Manharbhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the financial capacity of the complainant to lend a significant cash sum is specifically challenged, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove such capacity with documentary evidence; failure to do so dislodges the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
On this section: Definitions of 'shall presume' and general presumptions.
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.
-
… Thus, which needs to be emphasized is that presumptions filed under Sections 118 and 139 N.I. Act, are rebuttable in the nature. In the case of Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (D) By Lrs. & Ors. , (2005) 12 SCC 1, it was observed that the expression 'may presume' and ' shall presume' as explained in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, makes it evident that whenever it is directed that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless disproved. In terms of the said provision, expression ' shall presume ' cannot be held to be synonymous with 'conclusive proof '. 19. The scope of …
Questions about Section 4
What have the courts held on Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia (20 Feb 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Definitions of 'may presume', 'shall presume', and 'conclusive proof'. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 4 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 4, section 4 IEA, section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia (20 Feb 2023).
What should I read with Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 2 (Definitions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 4, 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.