Reverse onus theory and its prevalent misuse with reference to offences against women

Abstract

The introduction of the reverse onus clause under various legislative frameworks was largely intended to reduce the evidentiary burden on the prosecution, improving victims' access to the judicial system and facilitating their pursuit of justice. An additional rationale for this shift was the imposition of stricter and more severe liability on the accused, with the aim of discouraging potential offenders and preventing them from exploiting procedural safeguards to avoid legal implications. However, this legislative method is not without criticism. A key problem is the possibility of misuse wherein persons may be falsely implicated due to their failure to discharge the burden of proving their innocence, culminating in the victimization of innocent people. The research seeks to examine existing rationale of the legislation and critically evaluates instances of its misuse, which includes the rise of malicious prosecutions. The study will examine numerous statutory provisions involving reverse burden clauses, assessing their validity and rationale in light of intelligible differential and legislative intent, as well as explore court interpretations and documented incidents of abuse. Special attention will be placed on the application of such rules to sexual offenses, where the implications of the reverse onus principle are particularly evident.