ANKITHA JOY Vs. JOY AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In adversarial litigative processes, the general rule is that the burden of proof resides on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. However, Sec. 109 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) serves as an exception to this general rule by shifting the burden of proof to the party who has exclusive knowledge of the fact in question.

(2.) Incontestably, only a person who is in possession of a special fact or knowledge can disseminate it. To ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings, Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act makes a party in possession of such knowledge accountable. Exclusive knowledge of certain facts casts responsibility to disclose them; it places the burden on the party who is in a better position to produce the germane evidence. If the party with special knowledge fails to provide sufficient evidence, the court may draw an adverse inference against them.

(3.) To paraphrase, Sec. 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, establishes principles concerning the burden of proof in cases where a fact lies within the special knowledge of an individual; it stipulates that when any fact is particularly within the knowledge of one party, the responsibility to prove that fact rests with that party.