Difference Between Burden of Proof and Onus of Proof

In legal proceedings, the concepts of burden of proof and onus of proof play crucial roles in determining the responsibilities of parties involved in presenting evidence to support their claims. While these terms might seem similar, they hold distinct meanings and implications within the context of the law.

This article aims to provide a clear understanding of the differences between burden of proof and onus of proof, highlighting their significance in civil and criminal cases.

What is burden of proof?

The burden of proof refers to the responsibility placed on a party to prove the existence of certain facts or elements essential to their case. In simpler terms, it is the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to convince the court of the validity of one’s claim.

Key Points:

• Static Nature: The burden of proof remains constant throughout the legal proceedings and typically falls on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. For instance, in a civil case, the burden usually lies on the plaintiff, while in a criminal case, it rests on the prosecution.
• Establishing a Case: It involves proving the entire case to the satisfaction of the court. This means that the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence supporting all the necessary facts and elements required to establish their claim.
• Embodied in Section 101: Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act explicitly defines the burden of proof and specifies that whoever desires the court to give judgment on a legal right or liability dependent on certain facts must prove those facts.

What is onus of proof?

On the other hand, the onus of proof refers to the burden of adducing evidence or presenting proof of specific facts alleged by a party. Unlike the burden of proof, which remains constant, the onus of proof can shift during the trial based on the evidence presented by each party.

Key Points:

• Dynamic Nature: The onus of proof is dynamic and may shift from one party to another depending on the evidence presented during the trial. Initially, it lies on the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence at all was given on either side.
• Matter of Adducing Evidence: It primarily involves the presentation of evidence to support specific assertions made by a party. This could include proving the authenticity of documents, establishing the credibility of witnesses or demonstrating the occurrence of certain events.
• Embodied in Section 102: Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the onus of proof, stating that it lies on the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence at all was given on either side initially.

Differences between burden of proof and onus of proof

Now, let’s explore these differences between burden of proof and onus of proof further in detail:

Scope of responsibility

• Burden of proof encompasses the entirety of the case, requiring the party to prove all necessary facts and elements.
• Onus of proof, on the other hand, focuses on specific facts or assertions within the case that require evidential support.

Allocation of responsibility

• The burden of proof lies upon the party who must prove a particular fact essential to the case and it remains constant throughout the proceedings.
• Initially, the onus of proof lies with the party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence were presented on either side. However, it can shift during the trial based on the evidence presented by each party.

Legal codification

• The concept of burden of proof is explicitly outlined in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing its importance in legal proceedings.
• Similarly, the concept of onus of proof is codified in Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, highlighting its significance in evidentiary matters.

Here’s a tabulated summary outlining the key differences between the Burden of Proof and the Onus of Proof:

Landmark cases on between burden of proof and onus of proof

There exists a significant disparity between the concepts of burden of proof and onus of proof. The burden of proof rests upon an individual tasked with substantiating a fact, a responsibility that remains fixed and unyielding.

Conversely, the onus of proof is subject to shifting dynamics throughout the course of evidence evaluation. This notion of shifting onus has been consistently observed in legal precedents such as Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu),highlighting the static nature of burden of proof in contrast to the dynamic nature of onus of proof.

The term “burden of proof” encompasses two distinct interpretations: firstly, as a legal and procedural obligation and secondly, as the responsibility of presenting evidence. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the former, while Section 102 deals with the latter. The former remains consistent throughout legal proceedings, while the latter is subject to alteration based on the evidence presented. This distinction is underscored in the case of A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma.

In civil cases, the onus rests upon the individual asserting a proposition or fact that is not inherently evident. This principle was affirmed in the case of State Bank of India (Successor to the Imperial Bank of India) v. Shyama Devi. Conversely, in criminal cases, the burden of proving all essential elements to establish the charges against the accused lies squarely with the prosecution and does not shift. This principle was upheld in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar.

In essence, while the burden of proof remains constant and incumbent upon the party asserting a legal right, the onus of proof is fluid, subject to change based on the presentation of evidence and is often contingent upon the context of civil or criminal litigation.

Application in Legal Cases

Civil Cases:

In civil cases, the burden of proof typically lies on the plaintiff, who must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the plaintiff must present enough evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that their claims are true. However, the onus of proof may shift to the defendant if they assert a counterclaim or raise certain defences.

Criminal Cases:

In criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt rests solely on the prosecution. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and they are not required to prove their innocence. The onus of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial and if they fail to meet this burden, the accused must be acquitted.

Final Words

While the burden of proof and onus of proof are related concepts, they hold distinct meanings and implications in legal proceedings. The burden of proof entails the responsibility of proving the entire case, while the onus of proof involves presenting evidence to support specific assertions or facts alleged by a party.

Understanding these differences between burden of proof and onus of proof is essential for navigating the complexities of civil and criminal litigation and ensuring that justice is served fairly and effectively.