Section 114 Evidence Act: Court May Presume Existence of Certain Facts
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers courts to draw common-sense inferences from proven circumstances. Its modern counterpart is Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Meaning of Section 114: Discretionary Presumptions
The provision authorises a court to presume a fact that it considers likely to have occurred, taking into account the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business as they relate to the particular case.
May presume means the court is permitted, but not compelled, to draw an inference. The inference must be grounded in evidence and can be displaced by an adequate explanation or contrary proof. It is different from a mandatory presumption expressed by the words shall presume and from conclusive proof.
The provision does not allow a court to fill every gap in evidence by speculation. The inference must remain reasonable in light of all established facts.
Nine Illustrations Under Section 114
The historical provision sets out nine examples, (a) through (i), showing the kinds of presumptions a court may draw. These illustrations remain useful in understanding the corresponding BSA rule.
| Item | Presumption and explanation |
|---|---|
| (a) | Recent possession of stolen property A person found with recently stolen goods may be inferred to be the thief or a knowing receiver unless possession is satisfactorily explained. Ordinary commercial receipt of money or goods may weaken the inference. |
| (b) | Accomplice testimony An accomplice may be regarded as unreliable without material corroboration. The court must still assess credibility and independent supporting evidence. |
| (c) | Bills of exchange Acceptance or endorsement of a bill of exchange may suggest valuable consideration; influence or other suspicious circumstances can rebut that inference. |
| (d) | Continuity of a state of affairs A condition shown to exist recently may be presumed to continue, depending on how long such a condition ordinarily lasts and whether intervening events could have changed it. |
| (e) | Regularity of official acts Judicial and official acts may be presumed regularly performed, although evidence of exceptional circumstances can displace the inference. |
| (f) | Ordinary course of business A usual business practice may be presumed followed in a particular case, subject to evidence of interruption or departure from routine. |
| (g) | Withholding material evidence Where a party could produce material evidence but does not, the court may draw an adverse inference, taking account of reasons for non-production. |
| (h) | Refusal to answer Refusal to answer a question that a person is not legally compelled to answer may justify an unfavourable inference in appropriate circumstances. |
| (i) | Document held by the obligor Where a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the person bound by it, the court may infer discharge of the obligation, subject to contrary circumstances. |
Why the Illustrations Are Not Automatic Rules
The statutory examples must be read together with the qualifying circumstances that follow them. A shopkeeper who receives many coins may innocently possess a marked stolen coin; floods may have changed a river's course; official acts done in exceptional conditions may not follow normal procedures; and postal disruption may defeat the ordinary inference that a posted letter was delivered.
Similarly, an apparently unexplained failure to produce a document may have a legitimate reason, such as protecting private family information. Possession of a bond by the obligor might reflect theft rather than payment. The court considers these contextual explanations before applying a presumption.
Practical Application in Civil and Criminal Cases
Adverse inference for withheld evidence: Illustration (g)
If a party controls relevant records but withholds them without satisfactory explanation, the court may infer that the records would not support that party's case. The inference is discretionary and depends on relevance, availability, control and the reason for non-production.
Official acts: Illustration (e)
Ordinary administrative or judicial acts may be treated as regularly performed, but this does not prevent a party from challenging legality or producing evidence of procedural irregularity.
Criminal cases and the burden of proof
Presumptions must be applied consistently with the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's obligation to prove the elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. Section 114 does not itself create a universal reversal of that burden.
Modern documentary and electronic evidence
Business records, electronic communications and other digital materials may inform the factual context, but admissibility, authentication and applicable statutory conditions must be addressed separately under the governing evidence law.
Historical Section 114: Original Provision and Qualifying Examples
The following transcription preserves the substance and illustrative material from the original article for reference. Its references to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be read alongside the BSA provisions applicable to the proceeding.
114
Evidence Act - Court may presume existence of certain facts
Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Court may presume
existence of certain facts
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct
and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the
particular case.
llustrations
The Court may presume -
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is
either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
can account for his possession;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in
material particulars;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for
good consideration;
(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence
within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things
usually cease to exist, is still in existence;
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to
answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor,
the obligation has been discharged.
But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in
considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before
it: -
as to illustration (a) - a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after
it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is
continually receiving rupees in the course of his business;
as to illustration (b) - A, a person of the highest character is tried for
causing a man's death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B,
a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement,
describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common
carelessness of A and himself;
as to illustration (b) - a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C,
three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other.
Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate
each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable;
as to illustration (c) - A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of
business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under As
influence;
as to illustration (d) - it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five
years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which
might change its course;
as to illustration (e) - a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question,
was performed under exceptional circumstances;
as to illustration (f) - the question is, whether a letter was received. It is
shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by
disturbances;
as to illustration (g) - a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on
a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure
the feelings and reputation of his family;
as to illustration (h) - a man refuses to answer a question which he is not
compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in
matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked;
as to illustration (i) - a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the
circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?
It permits a court to presume facts likely to have happened in light of natural events, human conduct and ordinary business practices, considering the circumstances of the case.
What is the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the court's power to presume the existence of certain facts.
Is the presumption under Section 114 mandatory?
No. The word may indicates judicial discretion. The court evaluates the evidence and surrounding circumstances before drawing a presumption.
What is an adverse inference under illustration (g)?
A court may infer that material evidence withheld by a person would have been unfavourable to that person, but the inference is not automatic.
Does Section 114 reverse the burden of proof in every case?
No. It provides permissive evidentiary inferences; the governing burdens of proof and criminal presumption of innocence remain relevant.
Official Statutory Sources
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), official India Code PDF - see Section 119 and the repeal and savings provision.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - India Code - historical Section 114.
- India Code official legislation portal - check amendments and commencement information.
Last reviewed: 20 October 2026. This article is general legal information, not advice on a specific dispute.