FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TOPIC-FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

SUBMITTED TO: DR.SITA RAMA RAO

(FACULTY FOR LAW OF EVIDENCE )

SUBMITTED BY:

ANUPAMA SOUMYA

FOURTH SEMESTER(2016-2021)

ROLL NUMBER-1613

BBA.LL.B

1
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the BB.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report
entitled “FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED"
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of
my work carried out under the supervision of Dr.Sita Rama Rao .I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully
responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

ANUPAMA SOUMYA

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

2
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A project is a joint endeavor which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion,

diligence and with support of all. I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and
gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have
helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete effectively and moreover on time.
This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my
teacher
Dr. Sita Rama Rao whose support and guidance was the driving force to
successfully complete this project. I express my heartfelt gratitude to him.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without
whom I couldn’t have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands
who helped me out at every stage of my project.

3
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is based upon doctrinal method of research. This project has been
done after a thorough research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the
project.

Sources of Data :

 WEBSITES

 BOOKS
 BARE ACT

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily
analytical .

4
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 1:INTRODUCTION ....................................................................06

Chapter 2: SECTION 3 UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ...............11
Chapter 3:DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND
NOT PROVED................................................... ..........................................13

Chapter 4:STANDARD OF A REASONABLE .....................................17

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

5
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Chapter- One

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the Indian Law of Evidence. The Act is
contained in 167 sections and one schedule. The schedule is repealed using the
Repealing Act, 1938. Several amendments are later made to the act. The updated
Act contained 182 sections.

HISTORY OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

Today we have two basic of evidence upon which rules are formulated. One rule is
that only the facts bearing importance to the matter being heard should be looked
into by the courts and second that all facts that will help the court to reach a
decision are admissible unless otherwise excluded like a client confessing to his
legal counsel.

Among others from ancient Hindu Period, Vasistha recognised 3 kinds of

evidence:

Lekhya (Documentary Evidence)

Sakshi ( Witnesses)

Bukhti ( Possession)

Divya (Ordeals)

Though the concept of justice in Islam is that it is a divine disposition, the

Mohammedan law givers have dealt with evidence in various forms as indicated by
the table below:

1. Oral that may be Direct Hearsay

2. Documentary (Less preferred than oral)

Initially at many places and in many beliefs, the parties to litigation would fight
each other and it was believed that divine help will come to the rightful party. Trial
by battle has been abrogated only in 1817. The trials by ordeal included a person

6
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

on bed of hot coals or putting ones hand n boiling water. Anyone who suffered
injury was held to be impure and guilty. Though it was believed that providence
will not let harm come to the innocent, often it was the priests who manipulated the
tests so that certain people could go scot-free.

It was believed that if a guilty man touches the corpse it would show a reaction and
then the man should be punished. Accordingly refusal to touch a corpse was also
admission of guilt by the accused.

The most cruel evidence law existed in Europe with respect to witch hunts and
witch craft. The woman suspected of being a witch was tied up and thrown into a
pond. If she floated p, she was a witch and was burned alive at stake. If the woman
were to sink to the bottom of the pond, she was not a witch. Unfortunately she
would be dead by then but nevertheless innocent in the eyes of law.

Confessions due to torture are not unknown today either.

THE MODERN LAW AS IT PREVAILS

The concrete evidence of the ‘law of evidence’ comes from the times of the
Britishers. In 1837, an Act was a passed whereby even a convicted person was
allowed to give evidence. Subsequently, parties to litigation could be witnesses for
their respective sides. Charles Dickens ridiculed this law and questioned the
honesty of such witnesses. After all, who will testify against himself or to his
disadvantage? Between 1835 and 1855, there are eleven Acts that touch upon the
subject of law of evidence. And these were consolidated.

In 1856, Sir Henry Summer Maine, the then law member of the Governor
General’s Council was asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His draft was
found unsuitable for the Indian conditions. So it fell to Sir James Fitzjames
Stephan who became the law member in 1871 to come up with the Indian
Evidence Act. His draft bill was approved and came into being as the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and came into force from 1st September 1872. Before
independence, many states had already accepted this law as the law in their
respective state.

7
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

After independence, the Indian evidence Act was held to be the law for all Indian
courts.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is largely based on the English law of Evidence.
The Act does not claim to be exhaustive. Courts may look at the relevant English
Common Law for interpretation as long as it is not inconsistent with the Act.

The Act consolidates, defines and amends the laws of evidence. It is a special law
and hence, will not be affected by any other enactment containing provisions on
matter of evidence unless and until it is expressly stated in such enactment or it has
been repealed or annulled by another statute.

Parties cannot contract to exclude the provisions of the Act. Courts cannot exclude
relevant evidence made relevant under the Act. Similarly, evidence excluded by
the Act will be inadmissible even if essential to ascertain the truth. 1

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE

The Act deals with Relevancy of Facts, Mode of Proof and Production and Effect
of Evidence. The following principles are called the basic principles and The
exceptions to the above principles, the exact application has been set out very
clearly in the Act:2

Evidence must be confined to the matters in issue.

Hearsay evidence may not be admitted.

The best evidence must be given in all cases.

All facts having rational probative value are admissible in evidence,unless

excluded by a positive rule of paramount importance.

1
https://kanwarn.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/introduction-to-indian-evidence-act/
2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/indian-evidence-act-nutshell/

8
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Features of the Indian Evidence Act 3

 The Act is based on English Evidence Law with few exceptions. It is not
uncommon for Courts to peek into English Evidence Law in case of doubt. The
Act is Lex Fori.

 The Act is not applicable for domestic tribunals (such as Industrial

Tribunal, Administrative Tribunal etc.) and non-judicial proceedings (such as
Departmental inquiries, affidavits presented to a Court etc., proceedings under
defense discipline acts)

 Tribunals do not follow Evidence because they have to follow rules of

natural justice

 Indian Evidence Act applies to both Civil and Criminal proceedings. However,
some sections are applicable only to Civil, some only to Criminal and some to
both. The Act has put more burden of proof on the prosecution to provide the
guilt of the accused. The degree of proof required is stricter in criminal
proceeding than in a civil proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, the accused
must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

 Despite being a sister Act of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, it is a complete Act.

 Object of the Act is to get the truth of the several disputed facts or points in
issue. Burden of proof is on the party claiming to prove the substance of the
issue to the satisfaction of the court.

 Direct and circumstantial evidence is given importance over Hearsay Evidence.

 No person is bound to incriminate himself. Some categories of witnesses are

given protection and privilege.

Law of evidence is part of the law of procedure. That why it is called the lex
fori or the law of the court or forum. It means that Indian courts know and
apply only the Indian law of evidence.
3
https://www.lawnotes.in/Indian_Evidence_Act,_1872

9
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Thus, the competency of a witness, whether a fact is proved or not is

determined by the law of the country where the question arose, where the
remedy is sought to be enforced and where the court sits to enforce it. For
example, if a legal proceeding is going on in Sri Lanka and evidence is taken
in India for the said proceeding whether by commission or by assistance of
courts in India, the law which will be applied during such recording of
evidence will Sri Lankan Law of Evidence.

10
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Chapter -Two

SECTION 3 UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the 'Interpretation clause' and defines
various terms such as Evidence. 4

"Evidence" means and includes--

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called
oral evidence;
(2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are
called documentary evidence.
Section 3 says that one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Act
relating to the relevancy of facts. Section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts. So,
one fact will be relevant to another only when the one is connected with the other
in any of the ways referred in Section 5 to 55 and if it not so connected, it cannot
be a relevant fact.
Evidence

 Evidence means:
 Anything by which an alleged matter of fact is established or disproved.
 Anything that makes a thing in question evident to the court
 Can be oral (statements made by witnesses) or documentary (papers,
electronic records etc.)
 Documentary Evidence also includes 'Electronic records' as amended by
the Information Technology Act, 2000 effective Oct 17, 2000.
 All the statements must be permitted by court or required to be produced before
it.
 An Affidavit is not an evidence.

Fact‖.–– ―Fact‖ means and includes ––

(1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by

the senses;
4
https://www.lawnotes.in/Section_3_of_Indian_Evidence_Act,_1872

11
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Illustrations :

(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is
a fact.

(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.

2) Facts in issue (Section.3) :

The expression “facts in issue” means and includes —5

any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the
existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability,
asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

Explanation.—

Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to
Civil Procedure,any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied
in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.
―Proved‖. –– A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters
before it, the Court; either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act
upon the supposition that it exists.
―Disproved‖. –– A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the
matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its
non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
―Not proved‖. –– A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor
disproved. 6

5
http://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/02/meaning-of-fact-and-concept-of-fact-in.html
6
http://ncw.nic.in/acts/THEINDIANEVIDENCEACT1872.pdf

12
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Chapter -Three
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT
PROVED
Appreciation of evidence is a matter of
experience and knowledge of human affairs. It is a delicate task to be
carried out by Judges for weighing evidence and drawing inferences. Each
cases presents its own peculiarities. Common sense and dexterity are also
part of the tools.
Under section 3 of Evidence Act first the terms Fact, Relevant Fact and
Fact in issue are defined in respect of evidence and later when it can be said to be
proved,disproved and notproved is discussed. Thus, while appreciating evidence i
n respect of anyfact, relevant fact and fact in issue the Court has to give its anxious
consideration towards the peculiar facts of the case.
There may be severalfacts in a case before Court and among it some may be relev
ant or somemay be fact in issue. The Court has to first ascertain the facts, then it h
as to find out whether they are relevant and then whether they are actually in
issue. After ascertaining this, the Court shall examine the fact and later by
applying rules of evidence Court has to see that whether those facts are
proved, disprove or not proved.
In appreciation of evidence under section3 of Indian Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Su
preme Court has illustrated someinstances in Ganesh K. Gulve ...Vs... State of
Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 3068 in following words;
"In order to appreciate the eidence, the court is required to bear in mind the setup
and environment in which the crime is committed ,the level of understandingof the
witnesses.
The over jealousness of some of near relations toensure that, everyone even remote
ly connected with the crime be also convicted.
Everyone's different way of narration of same facts. Etc.”
It is one of the established principles of
law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. 7

7
http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/1st%20LEGAL%20WORK%20SHOP%20PAPER%20SUMMARY%2015-09-
2015%20-%2022%20to%2031.pdf

13
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it exists.

A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the
Court believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that
a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon
the supposition that it does not exist.

A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. 8

All that can be done is to adduce such evidence as that the mind of the tribunal is
satisfied that the fact is so. In the ordinary affairs of life courts do not require
demonstrative evidence. Absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is seldom
to be had in the affairs of life and we are frequentlyobliged to act on degrees of
probabilities which fall very short of it indeed.
In M. Narsingha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that a
fact is said to be proved when after considering the matter before it the Court either
believe it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under circumstances of particular case, to act upon supposition that it exists. This is
the definition of the word 'proved' in Evidence Act. What is required is production
of such materials on which the Court reasonably act to reach the supposition that
the fact exist. Proof of facts depends upon degree of possibility of having existed.
The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting
in any important matter concerning him.The extent to which a particular evidence
aids in proving the fact in controversy is called as probative force. This probative
force must be sufficient to induce the court either
(a) to believe in the existence of the fact sought to be proved, or
(b) to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the
supposition that it exists. The test is of probability upon which a prudent man may
base his opinion.
In other words, it is the estimate which a prudent man makes of the probabilities
having regard to what must be his duty as a result of his estimate.Proof and

8
https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/01/distinction-difference-between-proved.html

14
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

suspicion :- It must be borne in mind that suspicion and conjecture cannot take the
place of legal proof. 9
Matter before it :- In order to decide as to whether a particular fact is proved, the
court has to consider the 'matter' before it. The expression,
matters before it
in this definition includes materials which do not fall within the definition of
'evidence' as given in Sec. 3. The result of local enquiry by a court, material objects
brought before the court, material objects brought before the court, the demeanor
of witnesses, admission by parties, confessions by the accused, statement of the
accused, Commissioner's reports, are not evidence according to the definition
given in Sec. 3.
But they are all matters before the court to be considered while coming to
conclusion.

Disproved and not Proved

:- The definition of the word 'disproved' is a converse of the definition of the word
'proved'. The expression 'not proved' indicates a state of mind in between the
two, that is, when one cannot say whether a fact isproved or disproved. Not Proved
is something different from being false .

An inability to prove a claim does not mean in all cases that it is false. It negatives
both proof and disproof.Sec. 3 of Evidence Act, while explaining the meaning
of proved, disproved and not proved provides, the standard of proof. This standard
should be of ordinary prudence in person, who will judge its existence or non-
existence from the standard of circumstances before him.
In Naval Kishor Somani v. Poonam Somani, Andhra Pradesh High Court
said that a fact which is proved does not necessarily mean that it is false one. The
expression 'Proved' is followed by expression disproved. This is followed by
definitionof 'not proved'. The fact is said to be not proved when it is neither proved
not disproved. On the other hand the fact is said to be disproved when
after considering the matters before it the court either believes that it does not exist
orconsiders its bib-existence.
The word 'disproved' is akin to the word 'false'. What is disproved is normally
taken to be false thing. It will be thus seen thata fact proved is not necessarily a
fact disproved. A fact which is 'not proved'may be false or true. A doubt lingers
9
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/proved-proven.499992/

15
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

about its truth merely because it is not proved or may not jump to the conclusion
that it is disproved. A fact is disproved normally by the person who claims
that alleged that the fact is not true.
A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that the fact in question does
not exist and that the Court believes the non-existence of that fact fromthe standard
of man of ordinary prudence.Not Proved where the fact is deemed to be not proved
from the standard of a person of ordinary prudence. 10
The phrase NOT PROVED means neither the fact is provedwith certainty nor the
fact is believed to exist. The phrase NOT PROVED is between the phrase proved
and disproved. And the phrase not proved is the result of careful scrutiny of the
person of ordinary-prudence that the fact either exists with certainty nor its non-
existence is proved with certainty. It is provision between existence and non-
existence of the fact in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence.

10
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=24&sections_id=5123

16
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

Chapter- Four
STANDARD OF PROOF
( OF A REASONABLE MAN)

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Following the general external tests in use to determine the standard of proof, the
Indian Evidence Act accepted the conditions of a prudent man as being the apt
standard by which proof can be measured. Having said that, it is crucial to note
that even though the condition of a prudent man is accepted, the Court also makes
allowance to probable or improbable circumstances and conditions so that in cases
which do not require the criminal standard of reasonable doubt to be applied, the
standard of the probability or improbability of an event can be considered as
appropriate.11

The concept of reasonable doubt, which is considered to be the appropriate

standard of proof for criminal cases, though not defined in the Act has been
interpreted through various judicial decisions. In Commonwealth v. Webster ,
reasonable doubt is not meant to be comprehended as a mere possible doubt (as all
that is connected to the affairs of humans can be said to contain a possible element
of doubt).

Reasonable doubt is the state of mind of the jurors wherin they are not in a position
to confirm the veracity of the guilt of the accused even after careful perusal of all
the adduced evidence.Since the law presumes that the accused is innocent until he
is proven guilty, it is essential that before he is condemned, such a reasonable
doubt not exist. In the event that a doubt is created in the mind of the Judge, the
accused is permitted the benefit of the aforementioned presumption. 12

Beyond reasonable doubt, however, does not mean that those who have assessed
the evidence at hand should be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused as this

11

http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianevidence/3.php?Title=Indian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872
&STitle=Interpretation%20clause
12
https://www.scribd.com/document/328294103/law-of-evidence-Proved-Disproved-and-Not-Proved-tr-txt

17
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

would create a bizarre and inconvenient situation by leaving out circumstantial

evidence completely.

Although, it is a high degree, almost approaching certainty but not to the extent of
scientific or mathematical certainty, for example. It must merely rule out all the
reasonable suppositions conceivable, except the one it is trying to prove. To
generalise, it is important that all the cases that come before the courts, be decided
on their own merits and the extent of proof needed be fixed based on the facts and
circumstances of each individual case.

This ensures that each case is given its due importance and not always victim to
procedural exactitude, which though is essential to ensure justice may not always
achieve the same. What is characteristic to the Indian scenario is that the Apex
Court has laid down that the conscience of the Court cannot be bound by any rule
or provision but the fact that such a conscience is rising is proof of the fact that
prudent judgment is at play. This has been likened to explain the standard of
reasonable doubt. The doubt which is created in the mind of a reasonable man is to
be taken into account while coming to a conclusion and for this doubt to be
important enough, it must be proportional in nature to the offence alleged in the
case.

Where reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases, the standard
required for civil cases is the balance of probabilities. The standard continues to be
the balance of probabilities even in cases which are primarily civil in nature but
where a criminal charge may be made out against the party. This is concluded from
the definitions of the terms ‘proved’ and ‘not proved’, from the Act.

Basically, in civil litigation, the Judge has to decide in favour of that party who is
supported by the preponderance of proof. This, again, does not mean the evidence
considered be wholly exempt from doubt. It has been held by the courts that for
civil cases, the parties are required to make their best case before the courts based
on which the decision is granted in favour of either of the parties.

For criminal cases, the Court must take all the requisite measure to find out all the
relevant adduced and ensure that justice is meted out.

18
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

For the purposes of interpreting the Act, it cannot be said that a higher degree of
probability will in all likelihood fulfill the criterion of ‘proof’ under Section 3. As
such, the standard of beyond reasonable doubt is considered to be stricter than it’s
counterpart for civil cases, the balance of probabilities.

In The degree of sureness that is needed before a fact is said to be proved, is

explained in Section 3. Basically, as per the Section, the Court will consider the
case and the related evidence before it can say whether an alleged fact is in fact
true. The fact is said to have been proved if the Court is of the opinion that it exists
or its being is so probable that a man of ordinary prudence would function under
the presumption of its existence.This degree, of a fact being proved based on the
available evidence, is higher in case of criminal proceedings. The degree here is
that of reasonable doubt which essentially means that the Court is convinced
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

The burden to prove this guilt, in most cases, rests on the prosecution who has to
convince the rational mind of the same. The basis of decision in civil litigation is a
mere preponderance of probability whereas the basis in criminal trials the
assurance expected is much greater, although this depends from a case to case
basis.

The nature of the evidence and material put on record.For example, for a given
situation, the evidence produced maybe sufficient to prove a act for the purposes of
civil litigation but the same evidence may not be considered adequate to prove a
fact in criminal cases. The more blatant and deliberate a criminal act seems to be,
the more is the need for it to proved with certainty. This is perhaps to avoid the
severe consequences arising from a wrongful conviction.

Especially in criminal cases, an impartial moral conviction cannot be the sole basis
for sentencing the accused but must be backed by such findings and evidence that
prove that no other chain of events except the one endorsing the conviction is
reasonably possible. Those facts which support the incrimination of the accused
should be find to be in contravention of the circumstantial evidence on record.

This is important even though circumstantial evidence is not given the status of
conclusive proof; it is just as important as it acts as a ground for forming suspicion

19
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

against the accused and a negation of the same would help the case of the accused,
again, if proved beyond reasonable doubt.

For this, the circumstantial evidence recovered should not be justifiable. in fact,
there is usually no distinction drawn between circumstantial evidence and any
other kind of evidence. As established is the standard of proof for criminal trials,
the same is construed liberally when the burden of proof of proving an exception is
shifted to the accused. In other words, in a criminal case, when the burden rests on
the prosecution, a fact being ‘proved’ would mean a higher standard of proof is
necessary while the same (in case of exceptions, for example) is lowered when this
burden must be discharged by the accused.

Even so, the Indian Evidence Act doest not contain in its text any mention of the
level of satisfaction to be created in a reasonable man’s mind being different in a
situation where the accused has to discharge the burden of proof from when the
prosecution must do so. Even though it speaks of a possible shifting of the burden
of proof, the fact that the standard of proof is brought down in case of such a shift
is explained through decisions of the Court and not based on any statutory
provision.

It should also be kept in mind that it is not up to the Court to demand that a certain
method of proving a fact should be exclusively used with respect to a case before it
unless a specific Act requires this to be done. Similarly, the Court cannot ask for a
different standard of proof than what is actually sufficient in a particular case. If
asked for, it would be deemed a procedural error or an error in law.

20
FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

21
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

CONCLUSION
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it exists.
The word 'disproved' is akin to the word 'false'. What is disproved is normally
taken to be false thing. It will be thus seen thata fact proved is not necessarily a
fact disproved. A fact which is 'not proved'may be false or true. A doubt lingers
about its truth merely because it is not proved or may not jump to the conclusion
that it is disproved. A fact is disproved normally by the person who claims
that alleged that the fact is not true.
A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that the fact in question does
not exist and that the Court believes the non-existence of that fact fromthe standard
of man of ordinary prudence.Not Proved where the fact is deemed to be not proved
from the standard of a person of ordinary prudence.
The phrase NOT PROVED means neither the fact is provedwith certainty nor the
fact is believed to exist. The phrase NOT PROVED is between the phrase proved
and disproved. And the phrase not proved is the result of careful scrutiny of the
person of ordinary-prudence that the fact either exists with certainty nor its non-
existence is proved with certainty. It is provision between existence and non-
existence of the fact in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence.

In the course of writing this research paper, the researcher has been able to draw a
few inferences. Firstly, even though the standard of beyond reasonable doubt is
higher, it is nowhere expected that the evidence be able to prove the fact
absolutely. As long as there is no scope for a prudent mind to doubt the occurrence
of an event, that version of events is termed valid. Also simply because the
standard of balance of probabilities is considered to be lower than the standard
used in criminal trials, it cannot be validly concluded that the seriousness of the
matter in civil cases is not given due regard. In the opinion of the researcher,
however, there is also a nexus between the nature of penalty in the two cases and
the standard of proof to be discharged.

Secondly, quite often, the Courts have received suggestions to design a third
standard of proof, which would be somewhere between the criminal standard and
the civil one. Even though it seems that this could be the possible solution to

22
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

peculiar circumstances, like that of criminal allegations within a civil suit, in the
humble opinion of the researcher this would create confusion and absurdity, further
burdening the judicial system. That there are still ambiguous areas in the presence
of two standards shows that perhaps a third standard is not the best step at present.

23
 FACTS PROVED,DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 BATUKLAL LAW OF EVIDENCE

 V.KRISHNAMACHARI LAW OF EVIDENCE :MANOHAR
PUBLICATION
 LAW OF EVIDENCE,BY H.K SAHARAY

WEBSITES:

 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianevidence/3.php?Title=I
ndian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872&STitle=Interpretation%20clause
 https://www.scribd.com/document/328294103/law-of-evidence-Proved-
Disproved-and-Not-Proved-tr-txt
 https://kanwarn.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/introduction-to-indian-evidence-
act/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/indian-evidence-act-nutshell/

24