Section 105 of IEA : Section 105: Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.
IEA
JavaScript did not load properly
Some content might be missing or broken. Please try disabling content blockers or use a different browser like Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
Explanation using Example
Example 1:
Ravi is accused of murdering his neighbor, Suresh. During the trial, Ravi claims that he was not in control of his actions because he was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the incident. According to Section 105 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, it is Ravi's responsibility to provide evidence that proves his mental illness and that it prevented him from understanding the nature of his actions. The court will initially assume that Ravi was of sound mind unless Ravi can provide convincing evidence to the contrary.
Example 2:
Priya is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to her colleague, Anil, during a heated argument. Priya argues that she acted in self-defense because Anil attacked her first. Under Section 105 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Priya must prove that the circumstances of the incident fall under the exception of self-defense as defined in the Indian Penal Code. The court will presume that Priya did not act in self-defense unless she can provide sufficient evidence to support her claim.
Example 3:
Sunil is accused of theft but claims that he took the items under a mistaken belief that they belonged to him. According to Section 105 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Sunil has the burden of proving that his belief was genuine and reasonable. The court will assume that Sunil knew the items did not belong to him unless he can provide evidence to support his claim of mistaken belief.
Example 4:
Meera is charged with causing grievous hurt to her husband, Raj, during a domestic dispute. Meera claims that she was acting under grave and sudden provocation because Raj had just confessed to infidelity. Under Section 105 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Meera must prove that the provocation was grave and sudden enough to deprive her of self-control. The court will initially presume that there was no such provocation unless Meera can provide evidence to support her claim.