Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 110: Burden of Proving Death of Person Known to Have Been Alive Within Thirty Years

Introduction

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), is a full-size legislative development inside the Indian prison framework, replacing the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Its objective is to modernise evidence regulation according to the evolving desires of justice, while ensuring equity and clarity in judicial lawsuits.

One of the critical standards beneath the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is the distribution of the burden of proof, which plays an essential role in both civil and criminal instances. Within Chapter 6 of the Act — titled “Of the Exclusion of Oral Evidence using Documentary Evidence” — lies Section 110, which addresses a nuanced but crucial problem: Who bears the burden of proving the demise of someone regarded as alive in the remaining thirty years?

This article explores Section 110 in depth, explains its prison relevance, and discusses its implications through sensible illustrations and comparative insights.

Understanding Section 110 of the BSA, 2023

Section 110 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states:

“When the question is whether or not a man is alive or lifeless, and it is shown that he became alive inside thirty years, the load of proving that he’s useless is on the person who affirms it.”

At its core, this provision is based on the presumption of life. When there’s proof to prove that someone turned into alive sooner or later in the closing thirty years, the regulation presumes that the character remains alive, except there is convincing evidence to the contrary. The onus lies on the character who claims that the individual has died to show it with enough legal evidence.

This is a presumptive rule, but it is no longer a conclusive one. In that manner, it may be rebutted with credible evidence. However, unless such proof is produced, the regulation will presume the person is alive.

Legal Meaning of “Burden of Proof” in This Context

The burden of evidence refers back to the obligation of a party in a felony to prove or disprove a disputed reality. In the context of Section 110, if a dispute arises concerning the life status of a person, and it can be proven that the person turned into seen alive within the last thirty years, the burden of proving that the individual is lifeless rests with the celebrant who claims the death.

This criminal rule seeks to avoid baseless assumptions and guarantees that the party making a critical claim — which includes death — backs it up with excellent evidence. It is based on the principle that lifestyles are presumed to be maintained until there is evidence of loss of life.

Rationale and Time Frame of Thirty Years

The thirty-year rule isn’t arbitrary. It is derived from the know-how that life expectancy, communication, and data availability vary among people and areas. The period of thirty years is considered affordable and generous for determining the chance of a person being alive or not. It balances legal actuality with fairness.

Suppose someone was visible alive or had interacted with others at any time within thirty years before a prison sentence. In that case, it isn’t always legally reasonable to presume their death without sufficient proof. After thirty years, the load may shift, and courts may additionally entertain presumptions of loss of life based on the circumstances.

This time frame also aligns with other statutory presumptions and provides a stable reference for judicial decisions.

Practical Scenarios Where Section 110 May Apply

Section 110 has numerous sensible applications in numerous legal domains. Some not unusual examples consist of:

1. Property and Inheritance Disputes
2. When someone claims inheritance rights by declaring that a person (e.g., a far-off relative) is useless, and the last known file showed that the character became alive in the remaining 30 years, the courtroom will assume the claimant to show the demise.
3. Life Insurance Claims
4. Suppose a life insurance policy nominee claims death benefits, but the insured individual is alive within 30 years. In that case, the nominee must show death with death certificates or other desirable evidence.
5. Succession and Probate Cases
6. Section 110 performs a function in determining whether succession laws apply and whether or not wills may be accomplished, especially while the existence of the testator is in question.
7. Missing Person Investigations
8. If someone is lacking but regarded as alive in current decades, the police or judicial government will treat them as living until contrary proof is presented.
9. Government Records and Benefits
10. Pension claims, welfare benefits, and identification files regularly require clarity on whether a person is alive or deceased. Section 110 facilitates saving you from fraudulent claims primarily based on unfounded assumptions of loss of life.

Role of Documentary vs Oral Evidence

The BSA emphasises the value of documentary evidence over oral assertions, particularly in subjects that involve extreme prison consequences. Under Section 110, a mere oral declaration of someone’s loss of life isn’t always enough. The courts will be trying to find documentary evidence such as:

• Death certificate
• Medical information
• Police reviews
• Affidavits from equipped authorities
• Newspaper obituaries or public notices

Documentary evidence is considered extra reliable and simpler to confirm than oral testimony. The presumption of existence, consequently, can only be overturned with convincing, documented proof.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

Though the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is especially new, Section 110 mirrors Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and consequently, preceding judicial interpretations maintain their persuasive value.

One great precept established using Indian courts is that the presumption of death arises only after a person has not been heard from for seven years (below the vintage Section 108). However, Section 110 is fantastic because it presumes life, not death, for as long as thirty years.

This difference is essential. While the earlier regulation presumed demise after prolonged absence, the cutting-edge provision below BSA ensures extra safety against untimely declarations of death, unless conclusively confirmed otherwise.

Comparison with the Earlier Evidence Law

Section 110 of the BSA corresponds to Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which also said that the weight of proving death lies on the person who affirms it, if the man or woman in question became acknowledged to be alive within thirty years.

Therefore, at the same time as the substance of the regulation remains unchanged, the codification below the new regulation ensures consistency and relevance in the broader legal reforms introduced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and related statutes.

The continuity also reassures prison practitioners and litigants that foundational concepts of evidence regulation have no longer been disturbed, but as a substitute for better accessibility and interpretation.

Challenges in Application

Although Section 110 is straightforward in principle, its application in actual-life instances can present a few difficulties:

• A lack of reliable records in rural or far-flung areas can make it challenging to show when someone changed to the final visible alive.
• Fraudulent claims of death for financial advantage or property rights might also misuse the provision.
• In some cases, especially concerning missing folks, the presumption of lifestyles might also delay justice for households looking for closure.

To deal with those demanding situations, courts ought to cautiously study the context, available proof, and credibility of witnesses, whilst retaining the balance between presumption and evidence.

Read also: BSA Section 91

Conclusion

Section 110 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, reinforces a foundational precept of legal reasoning: a person who came into being in the last thirty years is presumed to be alive until it is established useless. This provision safeguards individuals from being wrongfully declared lifeless and places the responsibility on people who assert death to prove it via lawful and credible evidence.

By emphasising the importance of documentary proof and setting a clean timeframe, the law offers predictability and fairness in criminal court cases related to questions of life and death. It also displays the BSA’s broader dedication to ensuring justice through transparent and rational evidentiary rules.

As the Indian prison system continues adapting under new codes, provisions like Section 110 function as vital safeguards that uphold justice, due process, and human dignity.