Aashdeep kaur, B.com LL.B., Lovely Professional University
ABSTRACT
There lies a presumption that an accused is innocent until proved otherwise. There is no need to establish the innocence of the accused but to prove him guilty the prosecution has to hand in the best evidences. The criminal justice system of the country is very well organised with the provisions in legislations. It covers almost every aspect of the process right from the planning of an offence; attempt to commit an offence to the conviction of the accused. The court needs strict and reliable evidences to get to a conclusion of the case. For covering the aspects of evidences in court India has the act known as Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is necessary to have better understanding of the evidences that can be presented before the court which will be considered relevant and admissible. The question of relevancy comes first and then the admissibility of that relevant evidence is questioned. The main object of the law is to avoid the irrelevant, misleading and unfair evidences to get into court and affect the justice system of the court. The concept of burden of proof and the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’ requires prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. The prosecution has to rely on relevant evidence obtained legally. This paper focuses on principles surrounding the concept of burden of proof and critically analyses the provisions related to it.
Keywords: Evidence, Guilty, Judicial, onus of proof
