Introduction
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is an extensive part of India’s new criminal law framework, changing the colonial-technology Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This modern law aims to make evidence methods more applicable and effective in the present-day prison environment. As a part of the broader criminal reform, this rule is essential in ensuring fair and green trials, especially in criminal matters.
Chapter 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam offers a fundamental idea in proof law — the exclusion of oral evidence whilst documentary evidence exists. Within this bankruptcy, Section 111 addresses a unique but essential prison presumption — the burden of proving that someone is alive after no longer being heard of for seven years.
This provision, even as reputedly slender, has extensive-ranging implications in both civil and criminal instances, particularly in succession, inheritance, and lacking people. Understanding this provision enables us to admire how the prison system responds to uncertainty without concrete evidence.
What Does Section 111 Say?
Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states:
“When the question is whether or not a person is alive or useless, and it’s far proved that he has no longer been heard of for seven years by using those who would have heard of him if he had been alive, the weight of proving that he’s alive is shifted to the individual that affirms it.”
This approach is that if someone disappears and has not been contacted by buddies, family, or everybody who would usually pay attention to them for seven years, the law assumes the person is not alive. In any such scenario, if everybody claims the man or woman is still alive, they must show it.
The Legal Principle Behind the Provision
The basis of Section 111 is the legal presumption of death. This isn’t always a statement that the man or woman is truly dead; however, it is a presumption made to clear up prison uncertainties. Courts rely on such presumptions while direct proof is unavailable or impossible.
This rule is designed to hold order and equity in legal processes. Without it, families of lacking individuals will be left in prison limbo for many years, not able to assert belongings, access coverage advantages, or dissolve marriages. The law offers an inexpensive balance between desire and practicality by placing a selected time frame- seven years.
How Does the Burden of Proof Work?
In criminal lawsuits, the burden of proof refers to who is responsible for proving a reality. Under Section 111, once it is established that someone has not been heard from for seven years through those who are likely to keep in touch with them, the law presumes loss of life. The burden then shifts to everybody who insists the individual remains alive.
This moving of the load guarantees that courts are not crushed by using never-ending disputes or emotional appeals without credible evidence. The person looking to show enduring existence ought to present concrete proof, including a recent picture, a voice conversation, a tour report, or a sincere witness who has seen the person recently.
Practical Examples
Let us consider a few easy examples to understand how this provision applies in actual existence.
Example 1:
Suppose a man named Ravi left his place of origin in 2015 and never contacted his family again. His wife and children attempted the whole thing to find him — filed missing persons reports, contacted buddies, checked hospitals and jails — but to no avail. By 2022, seven years had passed with no sign of him. Under Section 111, the court docket may additionally presume that Ravi is not alive. If someone — say, his old business accomplice — claims that Ravi is alive and hiding overseas, the associate ought to now prove that claim with proof.
Example 2:
Imagine a scenario wherein a soldier goes missing in a battle region. After exhaustive efforts, the army and his family fail to trace him. Years pass without verbal exchange. In such cases, courts may additionally accept the presumption of death after seven years, permitting the circle of relatives to receive benefits or take legal decisions regarding the soldier’s belongings. Again, if a person later claims he survived and lives under an exclusive identity, the burden lies on that individual to prove it.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
Indian courts have long identified this principle, even below the preceding Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein it became codified under Section 108. The courts have held constantly that the presumption of loss of life arises simply after a full seven years of unexplained absence and a shortage of verbal exchange.
In the case of Lal Chand Marwari v. Mahant Ramrup Gir (1926), the Patna High Court clarified that merely not being seen for seven years isn’t enough — it needs to be demonstrated that the man or woman has not heard of them via folks who could usually pay attention to them, like near loved ones or friends.
Similarly, in Durga Prasad v. Secretary of State (1906), the court stated that even after the presumption of dying is drawn, no precise date of demise may be presumed until evidence supports it. This is particularly critical in instances of inheritance and insurance, where the exact date may affect claims.
Changes from the Previous Law
Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, closely mirrors Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with little exchange in substance. However, by way of such as it inside the updated felony code, the law guarantees continuity while reinforcing its relevance in modern criminal lawsuits.
One significant development within the new Act is simplifying language and arrangement, making it more available for each legal professional and ordinary citizen.
Applications in Civil and Criminal Matters
Section 111 is frequently carried out in:
- Succession and inheritance cases: Family participants use this presumption to switch property or claim rights.
- Insurance claims: Life coverage groups frequently require a court docket assertion of presumed death before releasing payouts.
- Marriage-related issues: Spouses can be searching for remarriage or divorce once a spouse is presumed dead.
- Criminal cases: If someone presumed dead is later found alive, their in-advance felony declarations can be challenged.
Limitations and Important Considerations
Although Section 111 gives a useful prison tool, it comes with specific boundaries:
- No presumption about cause or time of dying: The regulation best presumes death, no longer how or when it occurred.
- Requires lively effort to show absence: The seven-12 months length starts best if active efforts were made to locate the person.
- Can be rebutted: The presumption isn’t always absolute. If credible evidence arises that the character is alive, the court has to consider it.
For example, suppose someone produces a video recording of the lacking individual after seven years, or provides tour logs showing interest in a foreign country. In that case, the court will no longer accept the presumption of death without similar research.
Also read: BSA Section 83
Conclusion
Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is crucial in bridging the distance between absence and reality. It ensures that the felony rights of households and other affected parties are covered, even in the uncertain situation where a person has gone missing for an extended period.
The law promotes clarity, equity, and finality by setting the burden of proof on folks who assert persistent lifestyles after seven years of silence. At the same time, it remains open to later discoveries and new evidence.
In today’s increasingly mobile world, where people may disappear for numerous reasons — migration, conflict, injuries, or non-public choice — this provision gives a reasonable criminal mechanism to remedy difficult questions in both private and public interest.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, for that reason, keeps reflecting the stability between character rights and criminal order, which is a cornerstone of any mature criminal justice system.
