The golden rule that runs through the web of criminal jurisprudence is that "the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty". The onerous responsibility of proving all the ingredients of a crime lies with the prosecution. If the prosecution has not proven guilt to the standard of proof, reasonable doubt arises and the defendant gets the benefit of acquittal. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, this is not an immutable principle. The exceptions enumerated under Articles 105 and 106 place some of the burden of proof on the accused to prove facts of which he is aware. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act raises a presumption of abetment of suicide of a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Similarly, Section 114-A raises the presumption of absence of consent in cases of rape. The burden of proof is on the accused.[1] The above rule does not reduce the prosecution's burden of proving that the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable limits. The legal presumption referred to in art. 105 with the words "the judge presumes the absence of such circumstances" is not intended to replace the aforementioned traditional burden of prosecution. Only if the prosecution has proven its case with reasonable certainty can the court rely on the presumptions relating to the absence of circumstances falling within one of the exceptions. Presumptions help the judge determine who bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to assert the exception. Unlike the prosecution, the burden of proof can be discharged by the accused based on the "preponderance of probabilities". [2]The principle according to which suspicion, however strong, cannot be valid as evidence is equally consolidated. There is in fact a difference between "the accused may have committed the crime" and "the accused must have committed the crime". This evidentiary burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt by adducing 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 a human rights perspective.[3] The same concept was reiterated in the supreme court decision as "Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a human right subject to exceptions provided by law, this principle constitutes the basis of jurisprudence criminal. India"[4]ReferencesP.N.Krishna Lal v.nGovt. of Kerala, 1995Supp (2)SCC187.Periasami v. State of Tamilnadu(1996)6 SCC 457.Narendra Singh v. State of MP (2004) 10 SCC 699.Keep in mind: This is just an example.Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a custom essay Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman, (2011) 2 CCS 83