“May presume”.––Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may
either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.
“Shall presume”.––Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall
regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
“Conclusive proof”.––When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the
Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given
for the purpose of disproving it.
Section 4 Indian Evidence Act
“May Presume”
When a court is empowered to may presume a fact, it means the court has the discretion to treat a fact as true based on the existing evidence. The court may choose to either accept or reject the presumption, depending on the case’s merits. The court may presume that a person was in a certain place at a certain time, but it is up to the court to decide whether to treat it as a fact based on available evidence.
2. “Shall Presume”
When a court shall presume a fact, it means the court must accept the fact as true unless evidence is presented to disprove it. This is a mandatory presumption that the court cannot ignore.
If a document is a negotiable instrument (like a promissory note), the court shall presume its authenticity unless evidence proves otherwise.
3. “Conclusive Proof”
Conclusive proof refers to a fact that is legally binding once proven, and no evidence can be introduced to dispute it. The fact becomes irrefutable in court proceedings.
A marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act is conclusive proof of the marriage, and no evidence can be presented to dispute it once the certificate is shown.
Case Laws
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the role of presumptions under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court explained how presumptions can help in cases where direct evidence is lacking but circumstances point to a particular conclusion.
Sarwan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2005)
The court elaborated on how Section 4 is used in determining facts that can be presumed, particularly in the context of possession and intent. It highlighted the significance of the court’s discretion in determining whether to apply a presumption
