Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 880038616
The Indian Evidence Act distinguishes between two fundamental types of presumptions that courts can draw during legal proceedings. Understanding their differences is crucial for comprehending how evidence law operates.
Definition of Presumptions
A presumption is defined as an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact, rather than evidence itself. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is "a legal inference, or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts".
Types of Presumptions
The Indian Evidence Act recognizes three kinds of presumptions: presumption of fact (or natural presumption), presumption of law, and mixed presumption.
Key Differences Between Presumption of Law and Presumption of Fact
Aspect Presumption of Fact Presumption of Law
Basis Based on logic, human experience and law of nature Based on provision of law
Rebuttability Always rebuttable and goes away when explained or rebutted by positive proof Conclusive unless rebutted as provided under rule giving rise to presumption
Court's Discretion Court can exercise discretion (discretionary presumption) Mandatory - court is bound to draw presumption of law
Position Uncertain and transitory Certain and uniform
Source Derived from law of nature, prevalent customs and human experience Derived from established judicial norms and have become part of legal rules
Court's Power to Ignore Court can ignore presumption of fact however strong it is Court cannot ignore presumption of law
Relevant Provisions of Indian Evidence Act
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the foundational framework for understanding presumptions through three key terms:
"May Presume" - This means the court may regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. This represents presumptions of fact where the court has discretionary power.
"Shall Presume" - This means the court shall regard such a fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. This represents presumptions of law where the court has no discretionary power but is bound to presume.
"Conclusive Proof" - When one fact is defined as conclusive proof of another, the court shall treat the other as proved and shall not permit evidence to be presented to refute it.
Section 114 of Evidence Act specifically deals with presumptions of fact, stating that "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 use of "may" indicates this is discretionary.
Practical Examples
Presumption of Fact (Section 114 of Evidence Act): If a person is found in possession of stolen goods soon after theft, the court may presume he is either the thief or received goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. This presumption is based on human experience and natural course of events.
Presumption of Law: Section 113B of Evidence Act creates a mandatory presumption regarding dowry death - when a woman dies within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances, the court shall presume abetment by husband or relatives. This is a "shall presume" provision that binds the court.
The fundamental distinction lies in the source of authority: presumptions of fact arise from logical reasoning and human experience, while presumptions of law are created by legislative mandate and judicial precedent, with varying degrees of conclusiveness based on the specific statutory provision involved
