Alright, let’s just get to it right away, so, in criminal law, the burden of proof consists of “Who’s got to prove their point in court?” Imagine it like all the way convincing a judge or jury about what happened.” It’s all here in India because of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. It runs like this: if you have a claim, you have to show the evidence, simple as that! Otherwise, there’s no award. In criminal cases, therefore, it is up to the prosecution-accompanying the “accused” of committing a crime, to show that he/she is guilty. Until such time as they do so, he/she is considered innocent.
Therefore simple? Apparently, no.
How It Works in Criminal Cases
Do you think you can just drag someone to court and accuse someone of anything without having to prove that you’re right? Well, that’s not how things work. If you have a claim or accusation, you must have rock-solid proof to back up your claims in the courtroom. Your proof has to be good enough, and it must convince the judge or the jury that it actually looks like the accused is the one to 100% commit a crime. And if you’re thinking like why this is so strict anyway, well, just know that if it wasn’t like this, anyone could accuse anyone without any proof, and the cases will pile up in the courtrooms for centuries to be solved.
Though, keep in mind, it’s not like civil cases, where it’s often about which side seems a bit more believable, you know? Keep in mind, yes, criminal cases demand way more evidence, all because the consequences are so much more serious.
Who Carries the Burden and When It Shifts
Well, just so you know, when a case kicks off, the prosecution carries the burden of proof. How? You see, they’re the ones who have to show the accused committed the crime, right? Keep in mind though, things can shift around. Let’s assume (and it happens quite often) that the accused claims self-defence, in such a situation, they sure need to back that up. Like, they need to prove to the jury or the judge that whatever he/she did was purely in self-defence and nothing else. Or, if there’s something only the accused knows, they might have to explain themselves to the court.
As per some important details here, you see, this idea of shifting responsibility is part of the Indian Evidence Act, Sections 105 and 106. Like, Section 105 says that if the accused wants to use a specific defence (like claiming an act wasn’t intentional), they’ve got to prove it, no two ways about it at all. Though, Section 106 goes further, saying if the accused knows something nobody else does, then yes, it’s on them to explain themselves to the court or the judge. Does it all make sense now? In the end, keep in mind that it’s all about filling in the gaps when the prosecution’s done its part but the accused has the missing pieces.