Burden of proof is the obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Court in order to establish the existence or non-existence of the a fact contended by a party. The provision as to the burden of proof is founded on the Rule 'ei incumbit probatio, qui decit non qui negat' ‘the bur­den of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially assents of the affirma­tive issue and not upon the party who denies it; for a negative is usually inca­pable of proof’. This rule is derived from the Roman Law and is supportable not only on the ground of fairness but also upon that of the greater practical difficulty which is involved in proving a negative than in proving an affirmative. This Rule is an ancient Rule founded on consideration of good sense and should not be departed from without strong reasons. ( Prodeep Kumar Bhadra Vs. Sree Chandra Kanta Mondal and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD) [7818] )

Section 103 of The Evidence Act postulates that burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Burden of proof is an obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of Court in order to establish existence or non-existence of a fact contended by a party. Provision as to burden of proof is founded on Rule ei incumbit probation qui deceit non-qui negate - burden of proving a fact rested on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for a negative is usually incapable of proof. This Rule is derived from Roman Law and is supportable, not only on the ground of Fairness but, also, upon that of greater practical difficulty which is involved in proving a negative than in proving an affirmative = Halsbury Laws of England Vol. 13 Para 605. It is an ancient Rule founded on consideration of good sense and should not be departed from without strong reasons. Per Lord Maugham in Constantine Line Vs. I.S. Corporation, 1941 2 ALL E.R. 165. 179. ( Tajul Islam and others Vs. Chini Miah and others, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD) [7963] )

Law regarding burden of proof is envisaged in section 101 of the Evidence Act, wherein it is stated that the burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it. Moreover, it is reasonable and just that the suitor who relies upon the existence of a fact, should be called upon to prove his own case. The party on whom the onus of proof lies must, in order to succeed, establish a prima facie case. He cannot on failure to do so, take advantage of the weakness of his adversary's case. He must succeed by the strength of his own right and clearness of his own proof. ( Nurjahan Begum Vs. Nur Rahman and Others, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD) [3858] )

The law regarding burden of proof is envisaged in section 101 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt always rests on the prosecution and on its failure, it cannot fall back upon the evidence adduced by the accused in support of his defence to rest its case solely thereon. In criminal case it is for the prosecution to bring the guilt home to the accused. The fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent credible or unimpeachable evidence. Where the accused raises the plea of alibi, burden lies on him to substantiate that fact at least to the extent of a reasonable probability. Even if the evidence produced is capable of creating a doubt, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. (14 MLR (HCD) (2009) 412)

Law is now well settled that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case and he must succeed on his own strength and not at the weakness of the defendant. ( Esahaq Ali Mallik and another Vs. Mobarak Sheikh and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD) [7959] ) 

The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies squarely on the prosecution and it does not ordinarily shift on to the accused. (GM Nowsher Ali Vs. The State, 19 BLD (HCD) 177)

See Selim Saial Vs. A. Majid Molla and others, 2004, 33 CLC (HCD) [8590]. 

See sections 101 to 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872.