Evidence Act 1872 Section 107

Evidence Act Section 107 deals with the burden of proof concerning possession of property. It specifies that when a person is in possession of goods or property, and another claims ownership, the possessor must prove their right to possess it. This rule is vital in both civil and criminal cases involving disputes over property ownership or possession.

Understanding Section 107 is important because it clarifies who must prove ownership or lawful possession. It helps courts decide cases where possession and ownership conflict, ensuring fair adjudication and preventing wrongful deprivation of property rights.

Evidence Act Section 107 – Exact Provision

This section places the burden on the accused to prove lawful possession of goods or property when charged with theft. It means that if a person is found with stolen goods, they must show they have a right to possess them. This rule helps courts distinguish between innocent possession and criminal wrongdoing.

• The accused must prove lawful possession of disputed goods.

• Applies primarily in theft and property-related criminal cases.

• Shifts burden of proof to the possessor when ownership is challenged.

• Supports fair trial by clarifying evidentiary responsibilities.

Explanation of Evidence Act Section 107

Section 107 explains who must prove lawful possession when ownership is disputed, especially in theft cases.

• What the section says:

  The person accused of theft must prove lawful possession of the goods.

• Who it affects:

  Accused persons, property owners, courts, and police.

• Key evidentiary requirements:

  Proof of right to possess the goods, such as purchase receipts or lawful transfer.

• Triggering events:

  Accusation of theft or unlawful possession.

• Admissible evidence:

  Documents, witness testimony, or other proof showing lawful possession.

• Inadmissible evidence:

  Mere possession without proof of right is insufficient.

Purpose and Rationale of Evidence Act Section 107

This section ensures that a person found with disputed goods must justify their possession, promoting fairness and preventing wrongful conviction.

• Ensures reliable evidence of lawful possession.

• Promotes fairness by shifting burden to accused in possession cases.

• Prevents misuse of possession as evidence of guilt without proof.

• Strengthens judicial truth-finding in property disputes.

When Evidence Act Section 107 Applies

Section 107 applies when a person is accused of theft or unlawful possession, and the ownership of goods is contested.

• Conditions: Accusation of theft or possession of disputed goods.

• Invoked by: Accused, prosecution, or court.

• Criminal context: Primarily theft and property crimes.

• Civil context: Limited application, mostly criminal cases.

• Exceptions: Cases where possession is not disputed or lawful possession is evident.

Burden and Standard of Proof under Evidence Act Section 107

Under Section 107, the burden of proving lawful possession lies on the accused when charged with theft. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities to establish lawful possession. This section interacts with Sections 101 to 114, which outline general rules on burden and presumptions, clarifying that possession alone does not imply ownership or innocence.

• The accused carries the burden to prove lawful possession.

• Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.

• Section complements general burden of proof rules in Sections 101–114.

Nature of Evidence under Evidence Act Section 107

Section 107 deals with the admissibility and relevance of evidence related to possession and ownership. It requires documentary or oral evidence proving lawful possession. Limitations include the inability to rely solely on possession without proof of right. Procedural obligations include presenting evidence timely during trial.

• Focuses on relevance and admissibility of possession evidence.

• Includes documentary and oral evidence.

• Limits reliance on mere possession without proof.

• Requires procedural compliance during trial.

Stage of Proceedings Where Evidence Act Section 107 Applies

Section 107 is mainly relevant during the trial stage when the accused is required to prove lawful possession. It may also be considered during investigation if possession is questioned, and during appeals if admissibility or burden issues arise.

• Investigation: When possession is first identified.

• Trial: Primary stage for proving lawful possession.

• Inquiry: Applicable if possession is disputed.

• Appeal: Relevant when challenging admissibility or burden rulings.

• Cross-examination: Used to test possession claims.

Appeal and Challenge Options under Evidence Act Section 107

Rulings on possession evidence under Section 107 can be challenged through appeals or revisions. Higher courts interfere if there is a legal error or misapplication of burden principles. Appellate review focuses on whether the trial court correctly applied the burden and admissibility rules.

• Appeal: Challenging trial court's possession rulings.

• Revision: For procedural or jurisdictional errors.

• Higher courts review legal correctness.

• Timelines follow procedural codes.

Example of Evidence Act Section 107 in Practical Use

Person X is accused of theft after police find stolen jewelry in their possession. Under Section 107, X must prove lawful possession, such as purchase receipts or gift documents. During trial, X presents witnesses and documents showing ownership transfer. The court evaluates this evidence to decide if possession was lawful or criminal.

• Possession alone does not prove innocence.

• Burden shifts to accused to prove lawful possession.

Historical Background of Evidence Act Section 107

Section 107 was introduced in 1872 to address challenges in proving ownership when possession is disputed. Historically, courts struggled to decide cases based solely on possession. This section clarified evidentiary burdens, evolving through judicial interpretations to balance fairness and truth.

• Introduced to clarify burden of proof on possession.

• Courts historically required clearer proof beyond possession.

• Judicial evolution refined application in theft cases.

Modern Relevance of Evidence Act Section 107

In 2026, Section 107 remains crucial with increasing digital and movable property disputes. Electronic evidence like digital receipts supports lawful possession claims. The section aids e-courts in evaluating possession evidence fairly amid technological advances.

• Applies to digital and physical property possession.

• Supports judicial reforms for electronic evidence.

• Ensures fair adjudication in modern property disputes.

Related Evidence Act Sections

• Evidence Act Section 101 – Burden of Proof

  – Defines who must prove a fact in dispute, foundational for Section 107.

• Evidence Act Section 102 – On Whom Burden of Proof Lies

  – Clarifies burden distribution between parties.

• Evidence Act Section 103 – Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact

  – Details proof requirements for specific facts.

• Evidence Act Section 108 – Burden of Proof as to Ownership

  – Complements Section 107 by addressing ownership proof.

• IPC Section 378 – Theft

  – Defines theft, the crime linked to Section 107's application.

• CrPC Section 311 – Power to Summon Witnesses

  – Allows courts to summon witnesses relevant to possession evidence.

Case References under Evidence Act Section 107

1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006, AIR SC 144)

   – Burden lies on accused to prove lawful possession when charged with theft.

2. Ram Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1962, AIR SC 116)

   – Mere possession without proof of ownership is insufficient to discharge burden.

3. Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (1961, AIR SC 263)

   – Accused must produce credible evidence of lawful possession.

Key Facts Summary for Evidence Act Section 107

• Section:

  107

• Title:

  Burden of Proof for Possession

• Category:

  Burden of proof, evidentiary burden, possession

• Applies To:

  Accused persons, property owners, courts

• Proceeding Type:

  Primarily criminal (theft cases)

• Interaction With:

  Sections 101–114, IPC Section 378

• Key Use:

  Shifts burden to accused to prove lawful possession of disputed goods

Conclusion on Evidence Act Section 107

Evidence Act Section 107 plays a vital role in property-related criminal cases by placing the burden on the accused to prove lawful possession. This ensures that mere possession does not automatically imply guilt, promoting fairness and justice in theft trials.

Understanding this section helps legal practitioners and courts navigate evidentiary challenges in possession disputes. It strengthens judicial processes by clarifying who must prove what, thereby supporting accurate and equitable outcomes.

FAQs on Evidence Act Section 107

Who bears the burden of proof under Section 107?

The person accused of theft or unlawful possession bears the burden to prove lawful possession of the goods or property.

Does mere possession prove ownership under Section 107?

No, mere possession is not proof of ownership. The accused must provide evidence showing lawful possession or ownership rights.

In which cases is Section 107 mainly applied?

Section 107 is mainly applied in criminal cases involving theft or disputes over possession of goods or property.

Can evidence under Section 107 include digital documents?

Yes, digital evidence such as electronic receipts or transfer records can be used to prove lawful possession under Section 107.

How can rulings under Section 107 be challenged?

Rulings can be challenged through appeals or revisions in higher courts, focusing on the correct application of burden and admissibility rules.