In any case, civil or criminal, it must be made certain as to the question whether the claimant or petitioner has to prove his allegations in order to prove liability on the part the defendant or whether once the allegations are made the defendant must disprove them to get away with such liability. Thus the obligation on a party to establish the facts in issue in a case to the required degree of certainty to prove his case is called as burden of proof. The question as to what degree of proof is required of a party, who has the burden of proof in a case, is referred to as the standard of proof. This question is important in the process of evaluation by an appellate court, of the way in which the trial court dealt with the evidence. The burden of proof and standard of proof are considered separately in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases we find that the law tries to maintain neutrality, while in a criminal case, the law imposes the burden of proof and a high standard of proof on the prosecution to ensure that the accused is not convicted without stringent safeguards. The exception to the general principle of burden of proof arises where a statute expressly puts the burden on the accused or where it is implied, on interpreting the statute that the burden is on the accused. Such exemptions may be prayed only in cases of minor offences. There are two kinds of burden of proof – the legal or persuasive burden of proof and the evidential burden of proof. The rule of presumption has an effect on the general application of the burden of proof.
