rebuttable presumption

Is there any real issue? If so, please post material facts.

Respected Sir,

When we talk about Rebuttable Presumption, it means that a fact is considered as to be true in the court of law as an evidence until and unless it is proven otherwise which simply means that in the court of law an evidence is presumed to be true or of good quality until it is proved that this fact or evidence is wrong. and we cannot measure the extent of such presumption because of the same reason that it can only exists till the time it is not proven wrong.

Coming to Irrebuttable presumption, Sir, this term means that such presumptions cannot be ruled out by any additional probative evidence or argument. Therefore the presumption explained comes under the roof of conclusive presumption which cannot be proven contrary. For example:- It is presumed that a child under the age of seven years is not capable of committing any crime.

I hope I was able to help.

However, I would suggest you that for more clarification, consult a legal professional.

Regards

Arpita Chauhan

Law Student

The irrebuttable presumption doctrine provides that " irrebuttable presumptions are violative of due process where the presumption is deemed not universally true and a reasonable alternative means of ascertaining that presumed facts are available

For a brief period, the Court used what it called the “irrebuttable presumption doctrine” to curb the legislative tendency to confer a benefit or to impose a detriment based on presumed characteristics based on the existence of another characteristic.

Virtually any statutory classification can be seen as an irrebuttable presumption. A law forbidding automobile driving by anyone under sixteen may be described as a conclusive presumption that younger persons are unfit to drive—a presumption that is not universally true.

The conditions for the application of a rebuttable presumption of law are fixed and uniform and in consequence it alters the burden of proof of an issue. Also, a rebuttable presumption of law is to the effect that upon prove of a basic fact, the presumed fact arises.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the classification of Presumptions of law can be classified as:

1. Rebuttable presumptions of Law
2. Irrebuttable presumptions of Law

A rebuttable presumption is when the law requires a court to presume something is the case until evidence is presented that proves otherwise. A rebuttable presumption in criminal proceedings can work both ways, in favour of an accused or against an accused. There are several rebuttable presumptions within criminal law.

A rebuttable presumption can be overturned only if the evidence contradicting it is true and if a reasonable person of average intelligence could logically conclude from the evidence that the presumption is no longer valid. 

EXAMPLE: Bail

Diverse rebuttable presumptions apply in relation to whether a defendant should or should not be granted bail. Which presumption has to be applied depends on the offence the respondent has been charged with and their bail history if any.

When a respondent is charged with a trivial offence and does not have a history of failing to appear at court, a rebuttable presumption applies that he/she should be granted bail. Though, this can be rebutted by the prosecution if there are circumstances presented that make it unsuitable for the person to receive bail.

When a defendant is charged with a grave offence or has a long history of failing to appear at court, a rebuttable presumption applies that he/she should not be granted bail. Such a supposition may be rebutted by the defence if they can show that circumstances exist that make it appropriate to grant the person bail.

Ir-rebuttable Presumption cannot be ruled out by any additional proving or demonstrating evidence or argument. Thus, the presumption is a conclusive presumption which cannot be proven opposing.

EXAMPLE: A child below the age of criminal responsibility cannot be held legally responsible for his or her actions, and so cannot be sentenced of committing a criminal offence.

Well advised by experts, I fully agree, however, nothing left to add to this academic topic for debate..

Hello, Greetings of the day!
For the query you posted, 
Presumptions of law are such inferences or beliefs which are assumed by the court itself. Presumption of law is further divided into rebuttable presumptions of law & irrebuttable presumptions of law.
•    Rebuttable Presumptions are such presumptions that are regarded as evidence of fair quality and it does not lose its quality until the contrary is proved. Basically, it’s an assumption which is made by the court of law to be true until the contrary is proved by someone. The basic example of rebuttable presumption-
Illustration- Mr. A who trespasses in the possession of Ms. B at 8 PM where the theft occurred that is also being around 8 PM then it is quite obvious that he came in the property of Ms. B to do something unlawful or with some wrong intention to commit a crime until the contrary is proved. 
•    Ir-rebuttable Presumptions are the conclusive presumption that can’t be disapproved and the court is under obligation to make the conclusion. Therefore, the ir-rebuttable presumption comes under the ambit of conclusive presumption which can’t be proven contrary. The basic example of ir-rebuttable presumption-
Illustration- The person with an unsound mind is not competent to make the contract valid.
Hope it helps
Best Regards,
Sneha Jaiswal