544 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
two ways by which the issue may be adjudicated upon (1) By proving that the circumstances alleged do not exist or (2) By proving that the circumstances alleged do exist. Question is which of the two modes of proving the issue to be adopted— the mode of proving the affirmative or the mode of proving the negative.
- Where there are no reasons for holding :
(a) that what is asserted is more probable than what is denied
and
(b) where the means of proof are equally accessible to both the parties
then the rule is that the party which alleges the existence of the facts must prove that they exist. The burden is on him who states the affirmative of the proposition. He who denies need not prove that they do not exist
This rule is laid down in Section 101.
- Reasons why the law requires the affirmative to be proved instead of the negative.
(1) The man who brings another before a judicial tribunal must rely on the strength of his own right and the clearness of his own proof, and not on the want of right or the weakness of proof in his adversary.
Illus. Midland Rail Co. vs. Bromby —17 C B 372.
Doe vs. Longfield— 16 M & W 497.
17 C. B. 372
P. 380
(2) A simple negative by reason of its indefiniteness is difficult if not impossible of proof. A person asserts that a certain event took place, not saying when, where, or under what circumstances. How can a person disprove that, and convince others that at no time, at no place and under no circumstances has such a thing occurred. The utmost that could possibly be done in most instances would be to show the