‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the

‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, who among the following has to prove that he had a ticket?

‘A’ has to prove it
Guilt is always to be proved by the prosecution
The Court will decide it
It is proved the moment ‘A’ is caught without ticket
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
The correct answer is A) ‘A’ has to prove it.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. However, Section 106 of the Act provides an important exception: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” Whether a person has a ticket for travelling on a train is a fact that is specifically within their personal knowledge. Therefore, if charged with travelling without a ticket, the burden of proving that they did possess a ticket rests upon the accused (‘A’ in this case).
This principle is applied in various situations where the truth of a matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of one party. It’s an exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this specific scenario, proving the negative (that ‘A’ did *not* have a ticket) is difficult for the prosecution, while proving the positive (that ‘A’ *did* have a ticket) is straightforward for ‘A’ if it is true.
Exit mobile version