Section 111 and 111A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Proof of good faith in transactions involving active confidence and presumption as to certain offences

Section 111: Proof of good faith where one party is in a position of active confidence

Section 111 places a special burden of proof on a party who stands in a position of active confidence toward the other party. When the good faith of a transaction between them is questioned, the party occupying that position must prove that the transaction was entered into in good faith.

Statutory illustrations

Client and attorney: If a client challenges the good faith of a sale made by the client to the attorney, the attorney bears the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction.

Son and father: If a son who has just attained majority challenges the good faith of a sale made by him to his father, the father bears the burden of proving good faith.

What is "good faith" for Section 111?

For the purpose of applying Section 111, the central inquiry is whether the transaction was fair and genuinely entered into when one party occupied a position of active confidence. The section changes the ordinary evidentiary position by requiring that party to establish the transaction's good faith when it is put in issue.

Section 111A: Presumption as to certain offences

Section 111A created a statutory presumption in narrowly defined circumstances involving specified offences and disturbed areas or areas experiencing extensive disturbance of public peace.

Conditions for the presumption

The provision applies where a person is accused of an offence specified in sub-section (2) and the statutory territorial and factual conditions are established. These include a declared disturbed area, or an area where extensive disturbance of public peace has continued for more than one month, together with proof that the accused was at a place where firearms or explosives were used to attack or resist armed forces or forces maintaining public order while acting in discharge of their duties.

When those statutory conditions are met, the court shall presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the person committed the specified offence. The expression "unless the contrary is shown" makes the presumption rebuttable rather than conclusive.

Offences covered by Section 111A(2)

Under the pre-BSA legal framework, Section 111A(2) referred to offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and to criminal conspiracy, attempt or abetment relating to the offences specified there. These provisions concerned offences against the State.

Difference between Sections 111 and 111A

Section 111 concerns the burden of proving good faith in a transaction where one party occupies a position of active confidence. Section 111A, by contrast, concerns a rebuttable statutory presumption in specified criminal cases arising under the conditions laid down in that section. They therefore operate in different factual and legal settings, although both appear in Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act dealing with burden of proof.

Practical legal significance

Section 111 prevents a party occupying a position of active confidence from relying only on the ordinary burden of proof when the fairness and good faith of the transaction are challenged. Section 111A operates only after its statutory prerequisites are established and then shifts the evidentiary position through a rebuttable presumption. The exact facts, applicable substantive offence and procedural stage remain important in applying either provision.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: historical applicability

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governed the law of evidence before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. This page deliberately presents Sections 111 and 111A in that earlier statutory setting and should be read accordingly.