Lex Webinar Series- 53 "Reversal Onus of Proof in Criminal Cases" by Justice G.R.Swaminathan, Judge, Madras High Court Hosted by ssrlawoffice, madurai and Hemalatha Law Office, Chennai
My humble opinion is that Reverse burden of proof is different from onus of proof.Onus of proof does not shift the intial legal burden from the prosecution but only requires the accused to prove what he pleads as a defense.But in RBP legal burden is shifted eg s113B
I agree with Pichai Pillai sir, who is into the teaching profession particularly in criminal laws , law of evidence for more than 3 decades. shifting of burdens would occur when, it was originally fixed on the prosecution and then later on it tilts to the defence. For ex. wrt insanity intoxication or alibi it is already fixed on the defence to prove so. So onus does not shift, according to my understanding of laws Thank you...
Your Honour whoever is charging has the onus . In a passing of case in music copyright the onus should not be on the Defendant as it is first to be proved by the Plaintiff to convince that his work is original . Prior registration is no criteria. So granting stay merely because it is revs does not prove bonafide adoption .
Sir sections 105 106 of evidence act was condidered. In nanavathy cave by supremecourt reported in. AIR 1962 SC 605 k balasubramanian Advocate palani I am. Regularly hearing all your programmes.
Balance of power is in favour state having power to arrest,search,seize,electronic data collection, forensic advantage- it is not available to accused .
The 'burden of proof ' is the burden to prove the main contention of party requesting the action of the court, while the 'onus of proof 'is the burden to produce actual evidence. Can the lordship explain difference between 'burden ' and 'onus ' with illustrations?
