This section says the person is automatically guilty with no chance to defend themselves.

The presumption can be rebutted — the person can present evidence to show they did not commit the offence; it only shifts who must prove what.

This applies to any crime committed in a riot-hit area.

It applies only to the specific unlawful assembly/rioting offences listed in sub-section (2), and only when firearms or explosives were used against armed or public-order forces from the person's location.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 115

Presumption as to certain offences

(1) Where a person is accused of having committed any offence specified in sub-section (2), in—§

(a) any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order; or§

(b) any area in which there has been, over a period of more than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace, and it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at a time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist the members of any armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such person had committed such offence.§

(2) The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:—§

(a) an offence under section 147, section 148, section 149 or section 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;§

(b) criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit, or abetment of, an offence under section 149 or section 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.§

Why this exists

This provision continues Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was added in 1983 during periods of severe militancy and civil unrest (such as in Punjab), when security forces were repeatedly attacked with firearms and explosives from within crowds or buildings. Proving individual guilt in chaotic riot situations was extremely hard, so lawmakers shifted the burden: if a person was present where an attack on security forces originated, that person must explain their presence and disprove involvement, rather than the prosecution having to prove it from scratch.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section says the person is automatically guilty with no chance to defend themselves.
Fact: The presumption can be rebutted — the person can present evidence to show they did not commit the offence; it only shifts who must prove what.
Myth: This applies to any crime committed in a riot-hit area.
Fact: It applies only to the specific unlawful assembly/rioting offences listed in sub-section (2), and only when firearms or explosives were used against armed or public-order forces from the person's location.