The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 covers a largely unexplored area: the operation of presumptions. Nonetheless, its implementation has significant implications for how we interpret the prosecution's and defense's "burden of proof." 'Reverse onus' clauses, which place the burden of proof on the accused, have become remarkably common in recent penal legislation. Such clauses essentially raise a presumption of guilt. The issues of when and how this burden changes, as well as the applicability of such clauses, are still open.

Some understanding of how presumptions function in civil proceedings can be gained from the Thayer-Morgan presumption debate. Nevertheless, no comprehensive analysis of their potential application in criminal proceedings exists, possibly due to their non-consideration at the time. However, criminal presumptions still exist today, and a thorough examination of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is required due to the paucity of authoritative case law in the Indian context. There are multiple meanings associated with the term "presumption." The onus then switches to the opposing party to refute the presumption when the court finds that a particular fact has been established in favour of one party, relieving the party of this burden of proof.