Section 114 establishes discretionary evidentiary presumptions, permitting the Court to infer facts likely to have occurred from the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public or private business, assessed against the circumstances of the particular case. The presumptions are not automatic: their application depends on whether surrounding facts support or weaken the relevant inference. Application requires regard to facts capable of displacing the ordinary inference.

Section 113B requires the court to presume that a person caused a woman's dowry death where it is shown that, soon before her death, she was subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. Dowry death carries the same meaning as under the applicable penal provision defining that offence.

Section 113A permits a court to presume abetment of suicide by a husband or relative of a husband where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty. The presumption is discretionary and must be assessed with regard to all other circumstances. Cruelty has the same meaning as under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 113 treats a Gazette of India notification recording the pre-commencement cession of any part of British territory to a Native State, Prince or Ruler as conclusive proof that a valid territorial cession occurred on the date specified in that notification. The temporal qualification relates to the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Section 112 creates conclusive proof of legitimacy for a person born during a valid marriage, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution where the mother remains unmarried. The person is treated as the legitimate son of the man married to the mother, unless it is shown that the spouses had no access to each other at any time when conception could have occurred.

Section 111A creates a rebuttable presumption for specified offences when an accused is shown to have been present at a place in a disturbed area, or an area affected by extensive public-peace disturbance, from which firearms or explosives were used against armed forces or public-order forces performing their duties. The presumption applies to the listed Indian Penal Code offences and certain conspiracy, attempt and abetment offences, unless the contrary is established.

Where the good faith of a transaction is questioned between parties in a relationship of active confidence, the burden of proving good faith lies on the party occupying that position. An attorney must prove good faith in a sale by a client to the attorney, while a father must prove it where a son who has just attained majority challenges a sale to the father.

Where ownership of anything possessed by a person is disputed, the person affirming that the possessor is not the owner must prove that assertion. Possession supplies the factual basis for placing the evidentiary burden on the challenger to ownership.

Section 109 places the burden of proof on a person who asserts that an established relationship of partnership, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent does not exist or has ceased. Once parties have been shown to have acted in any of those respective capacities, the contrary assertion must be proved by the person making it, rather than by the person relying on the demonstrated relationship.

Burden of proving continued life shifts where a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of that person if alive. The person affirming that the individual remains alive must then prove continued life.

Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allocates the burden of proof where a person's life or death is in issue. Once it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years, the party asserting that the person has died must prove the death. The provision places the evidentiary burden on the affirmative claimant of death in such circumstances.

Burden of proof for a fact especially within a person's knowledge rests on that person. The individual with particular knowledge must establish the fact in question. Where conduct reflects an apparent intention but a different intention is asserted, the person performing the act must prove that differing intention. A person charged with railway travel without a ticket must prove ticket possession.

Section 105 places on an accused person the burden of proving circumstances that bring the case within a General Exception, a special exception or proviso in the Indian Penal Code, or an exception or proviso contained in a law defining the offence. In the absence of such proof, the court must presume that those circumstances do not exist. The burden applies to each asserted exception.

Admissibility of evidence depends on the party tendering it proving any foundational fact required before that evidence may be received. The burden lies on the person seeking to rely on the subsequent evidence. A party relying on a dying declaration must establish the declarant's death, while a party seeking secondary evidence of a document's contents must establish loss of the original document.

Burden of proof for a particular fact rests on the person seeking the Court's acceptance of that fact, unless another law specifically places the obligation of proof on a designated person. A party alleging that an accused admitted theft must establish the alleged admission. A person relying on being elsewhere at the relevant time must prove that assertion.

The burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if neither side produced evidence. A claimant seeking land held by another on the basis of testamentary entitlement must establish that entitlement, since possession remains with the defendant without proof. Conversely, where a bond's execution is admitted but fraud is alleged in its procurement, the defendant alleging fraud must prove it; otherwise, the claimant's demand under the bond prevails.

Burden of proof lies on a person seeking a court's judgment concerning a legal right or liability dependent on facts asserted by that person. The person must establish those facts. This applies to allegations of criminal conduct and claims to land based on disputed facts.

Section 100 preserves statutory rules on construction of wills from the operation of evidentiary provisions concerning exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence. Those evidentiary provisions do not affect the succession-law framework for interpreting testamentary instruments.

Persons who are not parties to a written instrument, and their representatives in interest, may prove facts showing a contemporaneous agreement varying its terms where the agreement affects their interests. The parties to the instrument cannot use such evidence to alter their own written bargain. Thus, an oral credit arrangement accompanying a written sale contract requiring payment on delivery may be established by an affected third person, but not between the buyer and seller.

Evidence may establish the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions, abbreviations, and words used in a peculiar sense. Where language refers to more than one subject matter, contextual evidence may identify the intended referent, including whether "all my mods" denotes models or modelling tools.