VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Evidence Act › Chapter VII › Section 114

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof

Section 114: Court may presume existence of certain facts

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.

Now in the BSA section 119 (Court may presume existence of certain facts)

In plain words

The court may presume the existence of any fact it thinks likely to have happened, considering the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in relation to the facts of the case.

  • For example, it may presume that a person found with stolen goods soon after a theft is the thief or a knowing receiver, unless they can account for it.
  • It may presume that an accomplice is not believable unless corroborated in material particulars, and that judicial and official acts were regularly performed.
  • It may presume that evidence which could be produced but is withheld would be unfavourable to the person withholding it.
  • The court must also consider facts in the particular case that show whether such presumptions should apply.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

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. 1. Ins. by the A.O. 1937, Part III of the Government of India Act 1935, came into force on the 1st April, 1937. 2. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, s. 7 (w.e.f. 25-12-1983). 3. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, s. 12 (w.e.f. 5-1-1986).

Illustrations The Court may presume ––

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;

(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;

(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;

(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;

(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;

(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it: –– as to illustration (a) –– a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business; as to illustration (b) ––A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; as to illustration (b) –– a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable; as to illustration (c)––A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under A’s influence; as to illustration (d)––it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course; as to illustration (e)––a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; as to illustration (f)––the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; as to illustration (g)––a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family; as to illustration (h)––a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; as to illustration (i)––a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 114 allows the court to presume the existence of any fact it thinks likely to have happened, having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business. The illustrations are examples, and every presumption under this section is rebuttable and discretionary (may presume).

May presume

Under section 4, may presume means the court can treat the fact as proved unless disproved, or ask for proof of it. The court is never bound to draw a section 114 presumption; it is a matter of judgment in each case.

The most used illustrations

  • (a) A person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft may be presumed to be the thief or to have received them knowing them stolen, unless he accounts for possession.
  • (b) An accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
  • (e) Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
  • (g) Evidence that could be produced but is withheld would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it.

Accomplice evidence: section 133 and illustration (b)

Section 133 says a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal. Illustration (b) to section 114 says an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The two are reconciled as a rule of prudence: courts do not ordinarily convict on an accomplice's word alone, and look for corroboration that connects the accused with the crime.

Soon after

In illustration (a), the presumption weakens as time passes after the theft. What counts as soon after depends on the nature of the goods and how easily they change hands.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State 2020 INSC 412

    Explained the relationship between section 133 and illustration (b) to section 114: an accomplice is competent, but as a rule of caution it is unsafe to convict on his testimony alone, and corroboration must connect the accused with the crime.

  • Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa 2023 INSC 514

    Under illustration (g), the court is entitled to draw an inference that evidence which could be but is not produced would be unfavourable to the person withholding it, though whether to draw it is a matter of appreciation of evidence.

  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra 2022 INSC 30

    Contrasted soon before in dowry death cases with soon after in illustration (a) to section 114, both implying a proximity test assessed on the facts.

Common mistakes

  • Treating a section 114 presumption as mandatory.
  • Convicting on an accomplice's uncorroborated word without explaining why.
  • Drawing an adverse inference without showing the evidence was available and withheld.

Read with: Section 4 Evidence Act, Section 133 Evidence Act, Section 119 BSA

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 114