Code: Section 119 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
(1) 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.
Illustrations.
The Court may presume that—
(a) 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) an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material
particulars;
(c) a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good
consideration;
(d) 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 state of things usually cease to
exist, is still in existence;
(e) judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g) evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
(h) 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) when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the
obligation has been discharged.
(2) 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:—
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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 A’s
influence;
(v) 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;
(vi) as to Illustration (e)—a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question,
was performed under exceptional circumstances;
(vii) 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;
(viii) 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;
(ix) 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;
(x) 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.
—
Explanation of Section 119 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Section 119 empowers the court to make certain presumptions based on the natural course of events and human behavior. This section does not mandate presumptions but allows the court to infer what is most likely to have occurred based on established patterns and evidence.
The section provides a list of practical illustrations—ranging from possession of stolen goods to judicial acts and business practices—where such presumptions may be drawn. These are grounded in common sense and regular human behavior.
The second part of the section cautions courts to consider specific circumstances in each case to determine whether or not these general presumptions should apply.
Key Takeaways
- The court “may presume”—it is discretionary, not mandatory.
- Presumptions are based on normal human conduct and the natural order of events.
- The court must consider specific case details before applying general presumptions.
- Useful in both civil and criminal proceedings.
—
Illustration
Example 1: Possession of Stolen Goods
A man is found with jewelry soon after a theft occurred. Under Section 119(a), the court may presume he is either the thief or received the goods knowing they were stolen—unless he provides a satisfactory explanation.
Example 2: Withheld Evidence
In a contractual dispute, a party refuses to produce a document that could affect the outcome. Under illustration (g), the court may presume the document would have gone against the withholding party.
—
Common Questions and Answers on Section 119 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
1. Is the presumption under Section 119 binding on the court?
No. The court may presume—it is a discretionary power, not an obligation. The judge may choose to accept or reject the presumption based on the case facts.
2. How does this differ from mandatory presumptions?
Section 119 deals with permissive presumptions. Mandatory presumptions (as in Sections 117 and 118 BSA) must be applied when specific conditions are met.
3. Can the presumptions be rebutted?
Yes. All presumptions under Section 119 are rebuttable. A party may present contrary evidence to disprove the presumed fact.
4. What is the relevance of the illustrations in the section?
The illustrations offer practical examples of situations where presumptions may apply. However, they are not exhaustive and serve only as guidance.
—
Conclusion
Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam allows courts to use logical inferences drawn from human experience and natural behavior to presume certain facts. This provision aids in judicial efficiency and fair reasoning but is balanced by the court’s discretion to assess each case on its unique merits. By incorporating both flexibility and structure, Section 119 helps courts fill evidentiary gaps with logical presumptions grounded in everyday life.
