RECONCILING VICTIM-CENTRIC LEGISLATION WITH ACCUSED-CENTRIC SAFEGUARDS - A CRITICAL LEGAL STUDY OF REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW

Abstract

 The principle of presumption of innocence forms the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the emergence of victim-centric criminal legislation in India has increasingly introduced provisions that shift the burden of proof onto the accused, commonly referred to as the reverse burden of proof. Such legislative departures are often justified on grounds of addressing systemic barriers faced by victims, particularly in offences involving sexual violence, dowry deaths, narcotics, corruption, and terrorism. Statutes, such as Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), and provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (being replaced by Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) reflect this trend. This research examines the constitutional and jurisprudential tensions arising from reverse burden clauses. While these provisions aim to strengthen victim protection and ensure effective prosecution of grave offences, they simultaneously raise concerns regarding the accused’s right to fair trial under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution & due process requirements embedded within Indian criminal law. Judicial pronouncements have attempted to reconcile this conflict by interpreting reverse burden provisions narrowly and requiring the prosecution to first establish foundational facts before the burden shifts. Landmark rulings illustrated the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing societal interest with individual liberties. This research adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology to evaluate whether reverse burden provisions represent a necessary evolution in criminal justice or an erosion of fundamental safeguards. It argues that while victim-centric reforms are essential, they must operate within constitutional limits, ensuring proportionality, procedural fairness, and continued adherence to the presumption of innocence.