Vol. 12 · pages 581–585

560 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “The question remains whether the Provisions of the Act are exhaustive and whether we can invoke the aid of the principles of Jurisprudence or of English Law as supplementing and explaining the rules of Evidence given in the Act.” 12 All. 1. English rules of Evidence apply. The rule is not an absolute rule. The section provides that a fact which is admitted may be required by the Judge to be proved by evidence by the party on whom the Burden of Proof lies. This is a safeguard intended to protect simple and ignorant persons against mistakes. It is probably under this proviso that admissions in Criminal trials are not permitted. § Facts the Existence of which is presumed by Law. 1. Definition of presumption. A presumption is a conclusion or inference drawn from a certain fact. 2. Principle underlying the rule of Presumption : (1) The universe is no doubt composed of diverse elements and the motives that operate upon people are different. Notwithstanding this there is a certain amount of regularity and uniformity. (2) With respect to things the order and changes of the seasons, the rising, setting and the course of heavenly bodies, and the known properties of matter-magnetismspecific-gravity show a certain regularity and uniformity of movement and occurrence. (3) With respect to persons the natural qualities, powers and faculties which are incident to the human race in general are more or less uniform. (4) With respect to Conduct of men more or less the uniformity. They are actuated by the same uniformity. 3. Given this uniformity it is possible to say that given one thing another can be said to follow. 4. It is on this principle Section 114 is based. 1. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of a fact if that fact is a likely result of a particular fact.

561LAW OF EVIDENCE 2. The test is— (i) common Course of natural events. (ii) human conduct. (iii) Public and private business. 3. It gives 9 illustrations of what would be likely results of certain facts. 4. Explain.—Illustrations (not given in MS—ed) 5. An event likely in one circumstance may very unlikely in another circumstance. Therefore in drawing a presumption the Court must have regard to the facts of the particular case. Explanations to illustrations (not given in MS—ed) 6. There can be no general codification of presumptions because the likely result must vary under circumstances. 7. The effect of presumption is to relieve a person from the Burden of Proof. 8. Presumption of Law and Presumptions of fact. 9. Rebuttable and Irrebuttable Presumptions. Norton P. 381. II. Analogous presumptions are maxims of law. They are also called presumptions in the loose sense of the word. 1. There are certain maxims of Law which are also called Presumptions. 2. Illustrations of Maxims of Law : (1) The law will presume that every body knows the law. (2) The law will presume that every person intends the natural consequences of his acts. (3) The law will presume that an accused person is innocent. (4) The law will presume that every human being is endowed with the power of understanding. (5) The law will persume that no man will throw away his property for instance, by paying money not due. (6) The law will presume that money advanced by a Parent to his child is intended as a gift, and not as a loan.

562 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (7) The law will persume that a parent prefers his own children to those of others. These maxims are related to burden of Proof. They help to fix the burden. § Presumptions as to Documents 79-90 1. Presumption as to the genuineness of certified 79 copies. 2. Presumption as to the genuineness of documents 80 Produced as record of evidence. 3. Presumption as to the genuineness of gazettes, 81 Newspapers. 4. Presumption as to documents—In England with- 82 out proof of seal or signature. 5. Presumption as to maps or plans made by autho- 83 rity of Government. 6. Presumption as to books of law and report of 84 decisions. 7. Presumptions as to powers of attorny. 85 8. Presumptions as to certified copies of foreign 86 Judicial records. 9. Presumptions as to books, maps and charts. 87 10. Presumptions as to telegraphic messages. 88 11. Presumption as to attestation and execution of 89 documents not produced. 12. Presumtion as to documents 30 years old. 90 Burden of Proof (ii) Matters of which Proof is not allowed 1. § Matters which parties are debarred from asserting. (conclusive evidence). 2. § Matters which parties are estopped from proving. (Estoppel). 3. § Matters stated without prejudice. 4. § Matters which are irrelevant.

563LAW OF EVIDENCE 1. § Matters which parties are debarred from asserting— Matters which parties are debarred from asserting are spoken of in the Evidence Act as Matters of Conclusive proof or commonly spoken of as irrebuttable presumptions or presumptions of Law. They are dealt with in Sections 41, 112 and 113. II. Section 112 1. This section deals with the Question : How to prove that A is the legitimate child of B and his wife C ? 2. There are two ways of proving this fact according to two different contingencies. (i) If the contingency is that the child is born during wedlock. (a) Prove lawful marriage between B and C. (b) Prove the Existence of Marital relations between B and C at the date of the birth of A. On proof of these two facts the Law will conclude that A is the legitimate son of B and C. (ii) If the Contingency is that the child is born after dissolution of the marriage between B & C—Either by death of the father or divorce. (a) Prove that A was born within 280 days after the dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce. (b) Prove that the morther had remained unmarried during that period of 280 days. On Proof of these two facts the law will conclude that A is the legitimate son of B and C. Points to be noted 1. The deciding factor in the question of legitimacy is not the time of the conception of the child but the time of the birth of the child. Whoever was the husband of the woman at the time of the birth of the child is the father. Illus. 1. Pal Singh vs. Jagir. 7 Lahore 368. Harnam Kaur married Hari Singh. Hari Singh died on the 10th January 1919. Harnam Kaur married Sohan Singh on

564 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 25th February 1919. Jagir was born to Harnam Kaur on the 17th October 1919 i.e. 279 days after the death of Hari singh and 198 days after her marriage to Sohan Singh. On a question being raised whether Jagir was the son of Hari Singh, Held that he was the son of Sohan Singh and not of Hari Singh. 2. Palani vs. Sethu. 49 Mad. 553. Pechi Ammal married Subramanya in October 1903. That marriage was dissolved in June 1904. Pechi married Thirumani in July 1904. Palani was born during the second week in September 1904 i.e. 4 months after the dissolution of Pechi’s marriage with Subramanya and 3 months after her marriage with Thirumani. Whose son is Palani ? of Subramanya or Thirumani. Held he was the son Thirumani. 2. This is treated as case of conclusive proof. This is treated so not because the truth is beyond dispute. A woman although married lawfully to one man may be in the keeping of another and her children may well in fact be the children of her paramour. This is so treated because for reasons of public policy or in the interests of Society an artificial probative value is given by the law to certain facts and no evidence is allowed to be produced with a view of combating that effect. Under Section 112 artificial probative value is to the following facts. (1) The fact of marriage. (2) The fact of access. So that where these two facts exist the law concludes that issue born must be legitimate i.e. it must be issue born of the husband. (2) This conclusion can be demolished only by giving evidence of non-access. It must be proved that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten.