A man was stabbed at the back by a knife and was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Another person was running away from the scene with his hands full of blood. What kind of presumption one would make from this? Disc

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) recognises some rules as to presumptions. Rules of presumption are deduced from enlightened human knowledge and experience and are drawn from the connection, relation and coincidence of facts and circumstances. A presumption is not in itself an evidence but only makes a prima facie case for the party in whose favour it exists. A presumption is a rule of law that courts or juries shall or may draw a particular inference from a particular fact or from particular evidence unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. Three categories of Presumptions are as under: (i) Presumptions of law- It is a rule of law that a particular inference shall be drawn by a court from particular circumstances. (ii) Presumptions of fact- It is a rule of law that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from a fact which is proved. (iii) Mixed presumptions- They consider mainly certain inferences between the presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. The terms presumption of law and presumption of fact are not defined by the Act. Section 4 of the Act only refers to the terms "conclusive proof", "shall presume" and "may presume". The term "conclusive proof" specifies those presumptions which in English Law are called irrebuttable presumptions of law. The term shall presume indicates rebuttable presumptions of law; and the term "may presume" indicates presumptions of fact. In the given situation, a man was stabbed at the back by a knife and was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Another person was running away from the scene with his hands full of blood. One can easily say that there is a presumption of fact that the man was stabbed at the back by the person running away.