THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE AND PRESUMPTIONS IN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

This article is written by Abhilipsa Kar of 10^th Semester of Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This article briefly discusses about the role of judicial notice and presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Judicial notice is mentioned under the Evidence Act from Section 56 to Section 58. According to these provisions there are various facts which need not be required to be proved in the court of law. Thay are facts of the court of law shall take judicial notice and facts which have been admitted. Then there is a brief discussion about the importance of ‘Presumptions’ which is mentioned under the Indian Evidence Act. There are broadly three categories of presumptions and they are the presumption of law, presumption of fact and mixed presumptions. It is also mentioned which presumptions are rebuttable and which are not. There are various provisions which are mentioned under the act which deal with the rule of presumption is mentioned in the article briefly.

Keywords

Judicial notice, Evidence, Presumption, Law, Rebuttable, Irrebuttable.

INTRODUCTION

In order to prove facts in a court of law, evidence must be given. For evidence to be acceptable, it must be produced in compliance with the guidelines outlined in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This rule is not applicable to the doctrine of judicial notice. According to the judicial notice theory, some facts are presumed to be known by the court and do not need to be proven. Since these facts are widely known and somewhat general, it would be disrespectful to the court to prove them. The Act’s Section 56 states that facts that are observable to the court do not require proof.

In general, presumption refers to the process of determining a few facts based on possibility or as the result of specific actions taken generally that strengthen the possibility. When such a possibility has a high degree of justification, facts may usually be determined. In legal terminology, a presumption refers to conclusions drawn by the court regarding the existence of particular facts. By applying a process of best probable reasoning, conclusions from the circumstances can be reached that are either positive or negative. The fundamental principle of presumption states that when one of the case’s facts or set of circumstances is thought to be the major fact and is supporting other related facts, then the other facts might be supposed to be true unless proven otherwise. The Indian Evidence Act’s Section 114 addresses this idea in particular. “With regard to the common course of (a) natural events, (b) human conduct, and (c) public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened.”

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Indian Evidence Act was amended by the British during their colonial era, incorporating the English common law idea of judicial notice. Both factual and legal matters are brought before the judiciary for review.

According to the judicial notice theory, some facts are presumed to be known by the court and do not need to be proven. Since these facts are widely known and somewhat generic, it would be disrespectful to the court to prove them. The Act’s Section 56 states that facts that are observable to the court do not require proof.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

According to the Indian evidence Act, judicial notice is the court’s recognition and acceptance of certain facts without requiring the parties to provide proof to support them. This body of legal doctrine acknowledges the impracticality or needless burden that comes with legally establishing some facts that are generally acknowledged, readily verifiable, and well understood.
The court may take judicial notice of facts that are within its own knowledge, within the knowledge of the general public, or that can be demonstrated with promptitude and accuracy, as per Section 57. [1]

Section 56

No fact “of which the court will take judicial notice” needs to be proven, under Section 56. Therefore, the parties do not have to prove a particular fact if the court is required to take notice of it. In light of this, it is a component of the judicial role. Judicial notice is based on a number of very clear convenience and expediency factors, and the prudence of excluding the proof of items that are widely known has never been questioned.[2]

Section 57 (Judicially noticeable facts)

The list of facts of which the Court is bound to take judicial notice is to be found in Section 57.[3] The following facts must be taken into consideration by the court:

1. Every legislation that is in effect within India’s borders;
2. All acts of the British Parliament, and all local and personal Acts directed by the British Parliament to be judicially noticed;
3. Article of War for the Indian Army, Navy or Air Force;
4. The course of proceedings of the British Parliament, of the Constituent Assembly of India, and of Parliament and Legislatures established under any law in force in India;
5. The accession and the sign manual of the sovereign of the United Kingdom and Ireland;
6. The seals of all courts in India and abroad that were established by the Central Government or Crown Representatives; the seals of the courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public; and all seals that any individual is permitted to use by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or an act or regulation that has legal force in India; these seals are all subject to judicial notice in English courts.
7. The appointment to office, designations, roles, and signatures of officers listed in the gazette;
8. The National Flag of every country recognised by the Government of India;
9. The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the official Gazette;
10.  The areas under the control of the Indian government; 
11.  The start, continuation, or end of hostilities between the Indian government and any other nation;
12. The names of courts officials and of all advocates, etc. authorised by law to appear or act before the court;
13. The rule and regulations relating the road, on land or at sea.

At the end of the section are two declarations that add to the provision. One of them describes that in all these matters, and also on matters, and also on matters of public history, literature, science or art, the court may consult the appropriate books or documents of reference. The second declaration describes that if a party calls upon the court to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so until and unless such person produces any such books or document as the court may consider necessary to enable it to judicial notice. It implies that the party requesting judicial notice of a fact must present the reference materials to the court.[4]

In a case law named Holland v. Jones, it was described that, ‘it is evident that no exhaustive list can be complied of things that are open to judicial notice. Illustrations of this truism will occur to everyone. That communication is possible by wireless telegraphy is a recent and conspicuous example.’[5]

Section 58 (Facts admitted need not required to be proved)

According to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact does not need to be shown if the parties or their representatives have consented to admit it during the court proceedings or in writing prior to the hearing, unless the court determines that proof of the fact is required. It goes without saying that once facts are admitted by both parties, they are no longer in dispute and no supporting evidence is needed. A fact can be explicitly admitted or impliedly admitted. It is considered to be implied if admission may be inferred from the parties’ conduct or utterances, and it is expressed when words are employed to do so. Admission is possible at any point from the suit’s establishment until its resolution.

Nevertheless, admissions stated in pleadings have very little evidentiary significance. The admissions made during the proceedings should not be interpreted as admissions made in a document, the Supreme Court stated in the case of Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly[6]. A party’s admissions are admissible against the party making the admission.[7]

ADMISSION IN CASES OF CRIMINAL CHARGES

Although Section 58 was not originally applicable in criminal trials, the Bombay High Court changed that in the Emperor v. Bansilal Gangaram Vani [8]case. In cases of criminal charges, the burden of proof always lies upon the prosecution. The prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even in cases where the accused has admitted guilt. This burden of proof extends to the accused’s acknowledgment of guilt.

SITUATIONS WHERE CUSTOMS ARE TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED

The English common law system is built on customs, which are regarded as the first source of law. These are essentially cultural customs that, just by virtue of their continued existence and widespread practice, are supported by obligations and penalties.[9] It is evident that customs, which have historical roots in the most archaic of cultures and continue to be relevant today, constitute a significant source of law. Newer habits are continuously being established by society, and these could eventually become usages or conventions.

In the case of Jadu Lal Sahu v. Maharani Janki Koer[10], The Court decided that there is no need to present evidence in order to establish the existence of a well-known custom. On the other hand, in situations when the Court needs to know the truth, it may occasionally be necessary to prove the specifics of the rites and rituals that take place within a particular custom by calling witnesses.

ADMISSIONS BY A COUNSEL

A counsel is a party’s agent who acts as the party’s representative in court. Unless an attorney makes a mistaken admission about a legal matter, an admission made by him is legally obligatory on his client. This is because, in contrast to an incorrect admission on a legal point, an admission of fact made by a party acting through his agent will serve as estoppel against him later in the trial.[11]

In a case of Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam[12], The Apex Court stated that any admission of a fact made by a lawyer is not regarded as definitive proof and can be shown to be false.

PRESUMPTIONS

The Indian legal system has adopted an additional classification called mixed presumptions, which includes both the aspects of facts and law, in order to avoid any ambiguity when making decisions in cases. The traditional common law approach only classified presumptions under two categories: presumptions of law and presumptions of facts. As a result, the current legal system has the following three categories of presumptions:

1. Presumption of Facts
2. Presumptions of Law
3. Mixed Presumptions

Presumption of Facts

There are various provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which describes about the presumptions of facts like Section 86- 88, Section 90, Section 113A, Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act. Sections 113A and 113 B are among the most significant provisions of presumptions under this Act. While Section 86 discusses certified copies of foreign court records, Section 87 discusses about presumption of Books, Maps and Charts, Sections 88 and 90 deal with presumptions pertaining to telegrams and thirty-year-old records, respectively. Section 113 A addresses severe crimes, such as the presumption of a married woman’s abatement of suicide, and Section 113 B deals with the presumption of dowry death. The phrase “shall presume” is used under the Presumptions of Facts. And according to the idea, unless and until the accused proves otherwise, the court will assume that the facts established before them are true. The phrase “shall presume” refers to the legal need that courts uphold and acknowledge certain facts as proved by establishing a mandatory presumption. Until this assumption is contradicted or rejected, the court must treat certain facts as fully proven. The court lacks discretion in upholding these presumptions in the event that the challenging party refutes them.[13]

The inferences that arise naturally and rationally from situations and observations in the course of ordinary human behaviour are known as presumptions of facts. They are often referred to as natural or material presumption. Natural Presumptions are essentially instances of circumstantial evidence because it is thought to be beneficial to act in a way that allows for many inferences to be drawn from other evidence. If this isn’t the case, there will be a great deal of ambiguity in the legal system because it will be more difficult to gather all the evidence needed to convict offenders or law-addled members of society. In nature, natural presumptions can usually be rebutted.

In a case law of Hem Chand v State of Haryana[14], The pair tied the knot on May 24, 1962. Shortly after two months of marriage, the lady left her husband’s house and told her parents that her husband was wanting a refrigerator and TV. After hearing these requests, her father paid her about Rs. 6,000 from his hard-earned money, and she departed for her new home as a married woman. However, the husband’s ambition did not end there. He once more begged her to retrieve twenty-five thousand rupees from her house, saying that he would be willing to purchase some real estate. After that, the accused brought his wife to her parents’ house and demanded payment of Rs. 25,000 before allowing him to have her back. She returned to her married house a year later with Rs. 15,000 and a promise that the remaining sum would be paid shortly. However, she was strangled to death in her husband’s house that same day. The accused was declared guilty and convicted by the trial court and the Supreme Court based on the presumption that her husband had mistreated her and that the husband’s actions may have contributed to her death in order to obtain a dowry.[15]

The idea of “presumption of certain facts by the court” is covered in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. [16]The Court may assume the existence of any truth that it deems probable to have occurred, taking into account the usual course of human behaviour, natural phenomena, and public and private business in connection to the specific facts of the case.

Presumption of Law

Legal presumptions are those conclusions and convictions that the law itself establishes or presumes. It can be separated further into irrebuttable and rebuttable presumptions of law.

Rebuttable Presumptions are some presumptions that are accepted as proof of high quality and maintain their validity unless they are shown to be false. Though it is difficult to determine the degree of such assumptions because they are only valid until they are shown to be incorrect. The simplest illustration of rebuttable presumption is this: it is evident that someone in possession of stolen items can be either a receiver or a thief.

Irrebuttable Presumption cannot be rejected by any more convincing data or reasoning. Consequently, the explanation provided falls within the category of conclusive presumption, meaning that it cannot be denied.

Mixed Presumptions

Presumption of Facts and Presumption of Law are two distinct categories of presumptions that the court may combine in its inferences; in these cases, the presumption is referred to as a Mixed Presumption. Only the English, which deals with real property statutes expressly, reflects the ideas of such presumptions. However, the Indian Evidence Act addresses these concepts and expressly states the presumptions in the Indian judicial system. There aren’t many rules pertaining to presumptions of facts or law under the Indian Evidence Act. The reach of this act extends beyond this point; it also contains many clauses, such as the Principles of May Presume, Shall Presume, and Conclusive Proof, that address the Indian Court’s discretionary power to raise presumptions.

Difference between Presumption of Facts and Presumption of Law

When presumption is formed based on individual facts, sets of related facts, or a collection of related information is known as presumption of facts, on the other hand in cases of presumptions of law, in specific scenarios or circumstances when the court itself presumes certain facts, presumptions are admitted without the need for proof.[17] Presumption of facts are always rebuttable in nature but presumption of law are conclusive in nature unless it is proved with the help of evidences. The former is derived from natural law, customary practices, and general mankind experiences. But the later one is derived from judicial customs and practices.

Distinguish among May Presume, Shall Presume and Conclusive proof

May presume is a circumstance where the court may exercise its discretionary authority to presume any or all facts and acknowledge that they have been proven, or it may request supporting documentation to verify or reaffirm the presumption that the court has established and it is mentioned under Section 4 of the act. To presume something is to make a firm claim or an intention to ascertain a fact. The “Shall Presume” principle is explained in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. It states that the court has presumed facts or groups of facts and will consider them proved until rejected by the opposing party. When using this assumption, the court has no discretion. Conclusive presumptions are among the strongest presumptions that a court may make, but they are also not entirely grounded in logic; rather, the court feels that these presumptions are made for the benefit or upbringing of society. The facts presumed under conclusive proofs cannot be contested, even if the presumption is contested based on probative evidence. This is because the law has absolute authority over conclusive proofs and will not permit any proofs that contradict the presumption.

CONCLUSION

The Indian Evidence Act’s Section 57 gives judges a way to take judicial notice of certain facts, expediting court cases and preventing needless delays. The court enhances the effectiveness of the legal system by acknowledging facts that are within its own knowledge, those that may be immediately and accurately demonstrated, and facts that are known to the broader public. But in order to guarantee a reasonable and fair legal procedure for all parties, the judiciary must use its authority wisely.

The Court clarified that presumptions have a broader application because they said the victim in a speedier trial and provide guidance for the case. As a result, the judiciary can benefit greatly from such presumptions in delivering prompt and comprehensive justice to society. Stephen claims that presumption is required, not permissive, and that Section 90 of the Evidence Act deals specifically with permissive presumption. Under a permissive presumption, the court has the authority to decide whether or not to believe.

REFERENCES

1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
2. Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence 294 (CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS 2020).
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596572/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-notice-indian-evidence-act-1872/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1225293/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.
7. https://lawbhoomi.com/custom-definition-types-essential/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.
8. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/327803/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

---

[1] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 57, No 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[2] Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence 294 (CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS 2020).

[3] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 57, No 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[4] Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence 297 (CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS 2020).

[5] Holland v. Jones, (1917) 23 CLR 49, Australia.

[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596572/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.

[7] https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-notice-indian-evidence-act-1872/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.

[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1225293/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

[9] https://lawbhoomi.com/custom-definition-types-essential/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/327803/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

[11] https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-notice-indian-evidence-act-1872/#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20judicial%20notice%20is%20that%20certain,that%20are%20judicially%20noticeable%20need%20not%20be%20proved., last visited on 21^st February,2024.

[12] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96229/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

[13] https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.

[14] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/998975/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.

[15] https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/, last visited on 18^th February,2024.

[16] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 114, No 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[17] https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-law/, last visited on 21^st February,2024.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.