Quick Answer
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — the general power of courts to presume facts based on the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business — has been replaced by Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The provision is reproduced virtually verbatim, including the accompanying illustrations. Section 119 BSA preserves the court's discretionary power to draw inferences from circumstances — it is a "may presume" provision, giving judges the flexibility to presume or decline to presume based on the facts of each case. This is one of the most frequently applied evidence provisions in Indian courts, and its continuity ensures that over 150 years of judicial interpretation remain fully operative.
What Changed
| Feature | Section 114, Evidence Act | Section 119, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Core power | Court may presume existence of any fact it thinks likely | Identical |
| Standard | "Common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business" | Identical |
| Nature | May presume (discretionary) | May presume (discretionary) — unchanged |
| Rebuttable | Yes — all presumptions under S.114 are rebuttable | Yes — unchanged |
| Illustrations | Multiple illustrations (a) through (i) | Same illustrations retained |
| Cross-references | References to Indian Penal Code in illustrations | Updated to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita where applicable |
Full Statutory Text
Section 114, Evidence Act
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations:
(a) A Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
(b) A Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.
(c) A Court may presume that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration.
(d) A Court may presume that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence.
(e) A Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
(f) A Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases.
(g) A Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
(h) A Court may presume that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him.
(i) A Court may presume that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.
Section 119, BSA
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations:
(a) A Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
(b) A Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.
(c) A Court may presume that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration.
(d) A Court may presume that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence.
(e) A Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
(f) A Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases.
(g) A Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
(h) A Court may presume that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him.
(i) A Court may presume that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.
Key Differences
Verbatim reproduction. The principal text of Section 119 BSA is word-for-word identical to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The legislature has not altered the substance, scope, or discretionary character of this provision in any way.
All nine illustrations retained. Every illustration — from the possession of stolen goods presumption (a) to the discharged obligation presumption (i) — is preserved in identical language. These illustrations have functioned as quasi-codified presumptions in practice and their retention ensures complete continuity.
Discretionary "may presume" character preserved. Section 119 remains a presumption of fact, not law. The court is not bound to draw the presumption — it may do so after considering the totality of circumstances. This distinguishes it from "shall presume" provisions (like Section 118 BSA on dowry death) where the court must presume once foundational facts are established.
No new illustrations added. The BSA has not added illustrations relevant to modern contexts — such as a presumption about the authenticity of electronically transmitted business records, or a presumption about digital communications sent from a person's device. This represents a missed opportunity to update the presumptive framework for the digital age.
Cross-references in illustrations. Where illustrations reference penal provisions, the BSA updates the cross-references to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The substantive meaning of the illustrations is unaffected.
What This Means for Practitioners
Section 119 BSA will continue to be one of the most versatile tools in a practitioner's evidentiary arsenal. Its open-ended formulation — allowing courts to presume any fact that appears likely from the common course of events — makes it applicable across virtually every area of law.
Illustration (a) — recent possession of stolen property remains critical in theft, robbery, and dacoity cases. When the prosecution proves that the accused was in possession of stolen property shortly after the theft, the court may presume guilt. The accused must provide a plausible explanation for possession. Practitioners should note that "soon after" is relative — courts have applied the presumption even weeks after the theft if the property is distinctive and not easily available.
Illustration (g) — adverse inference from withheld evidence is increasingly important in the digital age. Where a party controls electronic evidence (emails, messages, CCTV footage, server logs) and fails to produce it without adequate explanation, the court may presume that the evidence would be unfavourable. Defence counsel should use this illustration proactively to seek production of electronic records held by the prosecution or by adverse parties.
Illustration (e) — regularity of judicial and official acts provides the foundation for presuming that government officials acted properly, that court records are accurate, and that official processes were followed. This presumption is rebuttable but places the initial burden on the party challenging the regularity of official conduct.
The absence of new digital-specific illustrations means that practitioners seeking to invoke presumptions about electronic communications, social media posts, or AI-generated content must rely on the general principle rather than a specific illustration.
Does Old Case Law Still Apply?
Yes, completely. The verbatim reproduction ensures full applicability of all existing precedent:
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 — The Supreme Court applied Section 114 illustration (a) in a murder case where the accused was the last person seen with the victim. The "last seen together" presumption, drawn from the general power under Section 114, continues to operate under Section 119 BSA.
Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1986 SC 1099) — The Supreme Court's guidance on the scope and limitations of presumptions under Section 114 — that they must be reasonable, based on established facts, and drawn with caution — applies without modification.
Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 — Recent possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt, but the presumption can be rebutted by an explanation that is reasonably probable, even if not proved beyond doubt. This proportionality principle governs Section 119 BSA.
Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 80 — The distinction between presumption of fact (Section 114/119) and presumption of law (shall presume provisions) was clearly articulated and continues to guide courts in applying Section 119 BSA.
Judicial interpretation under BSA Section 119 (post-July 2024)
The following cases from the Veritect Legal Intelligence database show how courts are applying the general presumption power in practice:
Nandkumar Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra (25 February 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Case: CrlA/579-580/2012 | Result: Conviction upheld
The Supreme Court applied the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act (now Section 119 BSA) — specifically illustration (a) on recent possession of stolen goods — to uphold the conviction. The accused was found in possession of stolen property within a short time after the theft and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The Court reaffirmed that where the accused is found in recent possession of stolen property and offers no plausible explanation, the court may presume under the general presumption power that the accused is either the thief or the receiver of stolen goods. The Court emphasised that the strength of the presumption varies inversely with the time elapsed since the theft — the shorter the interval, the stronger the presumption.
Veritect reference: CrlA_579-580_2012_Judgment
Emerging patterns
- Illustration (a) — stolen goods presumption — remains the most frequently applied. Post-2024 courts continue to rely heavily on the recent possession presumption as a key tool in theft, robbery, and burglary prosecutions.
- Time factor as a variable. Courts are articulating with greater specificity how the elapsed time between theft and possession discovery affects the strength of the Section 119 presumption — shorter intervals create stronger presumptions.
- No new digital-age illustrations from the judiciary. Despite the BSA's failure to add digital-specific illustrations to Section 119, courts have not yet created judge-made presumptions about electronic communications, social media authenticity, or AI-generated content under the general power.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Section 119 BSA presumption binding on the court? No. It is a "may presume" provision — the court has discretion to draw or decline the presumption based on the facts of each case. The judge evaluates whether the presumed fact is "likely to have happened" in light of the common course of events, and may decline to presume if the circumstances are unusual or the presumption would be unreasonable.
Can a conviction rest solely on a Section 119 presumption? Courts are reluctant to convict solely on the basis of a factual presumption under Section 119 without corroborative evidence. However, in combination with other evidence, the presumption can strengthen the prosecution's case sufficiently for conviction. The possession of stolen goods presumption (illustration (a)) is the most common example where the presumption, combined with the failure of the accused to explain possession, supports conviction.
Does Section 119 BSA create new presumptions not listed in the illustrations? Yes. The nine illustrations are illustrative, not exhaustive. The general power in the opening sentence allows courts to presume any fact that appears likely from the common course of events. Courts have created non-illustrated presumptions — such as the "last seen together" presumption and the presumption that a person in conscious possession of a weapon used in a crime was the assailant — all under the general power.
Can the adverse inference under illustration (g) apply to electronic evidence? Yes. If a party controls electronic evidence — emails, WhatsApp messages, CCTV footage, server logs, GPS data — and fails to produce it without adequate explanation, the court may presume that the evidence would be unfavourable. This is increasingly relevant in corporate fraud, matrimonial disputes, and cybercrime cases.