Evidential standards of proof applicable in civil cases

 PLD 2022 SC 353

As to proof of a fact, clause (4) of Article 2 of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984 provides:

“(4) A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

The conceptual analysis of this clause shows that in order to prove a fact asserted by a party, it does not require a perfect proof of facts, as it is very rare to have an absolute certainty on facts. This provision sets the standard of a ‘prudent man’ for determining the probative effect of evidence under the ‘circumstances of the particular case’. The judicial consensus that has evolved over time is that the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’ is applicable in civil cases, the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and the in-between standard of ‘clear and convincing proof’ in civil cases involving allegations of a criminal nature.3 All these three standards are, in fact, three different degrees of probability, which cannot be expressed in mathematical terms, and are to be evaluated ‘under the circumstances of the particular case’, as provided in clause (4) of Article 2 of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984.