LAW OF EVIDENCE 547
Fact alleged in the Written Statement.
The Defendant did emboss the Calico in a workmanlike manner. On whom is the burden ? If form alone was considered the burden would be on the Defendant. If substance was taken into account the burden must be on the Plaintiff. Although put in the negative he affirms that the workman embossed the Calico in an unworkman like manner.
(2) 7 Carrington and Payne 612. Loward vs. Leggatt.
Fact alleged by the Plaintiff.
That the Defendant did not repair the premises as bound by the covenant
Fact alleged by the Defendant. That the Defendant did repair. In form the burden is on the Defendant. In substance it is on the Plaintiff.
The Burden of proving the issue in Criminal Trials
- Section 101 is a general section and applies to both civil as well as criminal proceedings.
Section 105 is another section which relates to the burden of proving an issue as distinguished from the burden of proving a fact but applies to criminal proceedings only.
- To understand this section it is necessary to know the scheme of the Indian Penal Code. The Indian Penal Code defines various offences such as theft, murder, cheating etc. Some 400 in all. The task of framing definitions which would be exact, neither too wide, nor too narrow has been very difficult and with the best of efforts the authors of the Code have failed to frame exact definitions. They have however erred in making them too broad. Consequently they found it necessary to limit these definitions by enacting exceptions. Some of these exceptions are common to all the offences as defined by the Code. Other exceptions are specifically applicable to a particular offence.
Illustration (1):
(1) Whoever causes hurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
(2) Whoever steals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Whoever = Any person who does etc.,