Question Description
The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?a)The State has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.b)The State has the burden of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities.c)Ram Singh has the reverse burden of proof.d)Cannot be inferred from the given information.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.