The golden rule that runs through the web of criminal jurisprudence is that “the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty”. The heavy responsibility of proving all the elements of an offense falls on the prosecution. If the prosecution has failed to prove guilt according to the standard of proof, a reasonable doubt arises and the accused is granted an acquittal. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay However, this is not an immutable principle. The exceptions listed in Articles 105 and 106 impose part of the burden of proof on the accused for the facts of which he is aware. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act raises a presumption of abetment to suicide of a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Similarly, Article 114-A raises the presumption of absence of consent in cases of rape. The burden of proof is on the accused.[1]This rule does not reduce the burden on the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the offense beyond reasonable standards. The statutory presumption under Section 105 with the words “the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances” is not intended to shift the aforementioned traditional burden of prosecution. Only when the prosecution has proven its case with reasonable certainty can the court rely on presumptions regarding the absence of circumstances falling within one of the exceptions. presumptions help the court determine who bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to attract the exception. Unlike the prosecution, the accused can discharge the burden of proof based on the “balance of probabilities”. [2] It is also a well-established principle that suspicions, however strong they may be, cannot serve as proof. There is indeed a difference between “the accused may have committed the crime” and “the accused must have committed the crime”. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt by presenting reliable and convincing evidence. The presumption of innocence has also been recognized as an important human right which cannot be ignored in Indian criminal jurisprudence as well as from the human rights perspective.[3] The same concept was reiterated in the Supreme Court decision as follows: “Every accused person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a human right subject to statutory exceptions, this principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. »[4]ReferencesP.N.Krishna Lal v.nGovt. of Kerala, 1995Supp (2)SCC187.Periasami v. State of Tamil Nadu(1996)6 SCC 457.Narendra Singh v.State of MP (2004) 10 SCC 699.Keep in mind: this is just one sample.Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayGanesan c. Rama Raghuraman, (2011) 2 SCC 83