Burden of Proof — Who Must Prove What?

Burden of Proof

In every criminal case, one basic question arises, who has to prove the truth?
The accused? Or the state?

Criminal law gives a very clear answer:
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

This principle flows directly from the presumption of innocence. If a person is presumed innocent, then he does not have to prove that he is innocent. The one who accuses must prove.

What Is “Burden of Proof”?
Burden of proof means:
The legal responsibility to establish a fact before the court. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove:

• That the accused committed the act
• That the act is defined as an offence under law
• That the required intention (mens rea) existed

If the prosecution fails in any of these, the case fails. This principle is recognized in Article 14(2) of the ICCPR.

Why Is the Burden Not on the Accused?
Because accusation is easy.
The state has:

• Police
• Investigators
• Forensic experts
• Prosecutors
• Power

The accused has:

• Liberty at risk

If the law required the accused to prove innocence, the system would become oppressive. Anyone could be arrested and forced to “prove” they did not commit something, and that would reverse the justice.

The Logical Connection
Presumption of Innocence →
Burden of Proof on Prosecution →
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt →
Benefit of Doubt

Remove burden of proof from prosecution, and the entire structure will collapse. This is why courts give the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to discharge its burden.

Example
Suppose someone is charged with theft. The prosecution must prove:

1. Property existed
2. It belonged to someone else
3. It was taken
4. It was taken dishonestly
5. The accused committed the act

The accused is not required to prove:

“I was not there.”
“I did not steal.”
“I am innocent.”

If prosecution evidence is weak or incomplete, the court must acquit. To many people, such acquittals appear unjust, a confusion we discussed in Law vs Justice.
The court must acquit not because the judge “likes” the accused.. but because the burden was not discharged.

Are There Exceptions?
Yes, but they are limited.
In certain situations, law may shift a limited burden onto the accused, for example:

• When claiming a legal exception (like self-defence)
• When certain statutory presumptions apply

But even then, the primary burden of proving guilt remains on the prosecution.
The shift is narrow, not absolute.

Historical Foundation
The allocation of burden of proof in criminal law developed through English common law and has become a universal principle of fair trial. Modern human rights law reinforces it through the right to a fair trial under instruments such as:

• Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Courts across jurisdictions consistently affirm that the prosecution must prove guilt.

Why This Principle Matters
If the burden were reversed:

• Silence would become guilt
• Arrest would become conviction
• Fear would replace fairness

Burden of proof is not technical language. It is a shield. It forces the state to justify punishment. It prevents conviction based on suspicion, pressure, or assumption.

Crux

In society, people say:
“If he is innocent, let him prove it.”

In law, we say:
“If you accuse him, prove it.”

That difference protects freedom because, as we explained in What is Law?, law exists not merely to punish, but to regulate power.

Welcome back to Legal Bethak.
From Classroom to Courtroom.