which must prove otherwise of this presumption. This legal presumption aims at safeguarding the interest of the victim by holding her testimony as being credible about the giving of consent unless effectively rebutted.

Important points:

-This presumption reinforces a victim-centric approach in the adjudication of sexual offences. With the presumption of the lack of consent based on the testimony of the victim, Section 120 reduces evidentiary challenges often imposed by the victim in rape cases. Main evidentiary challenges the victim faces in the process of proving sexual violence are the societal biases and stigmas that undermine the credibility of the victim in court. The presumption helps ease the burden on the victim to prove lack of consent and thus makes the legal process more balanced.

- To prosecutors, this presumption makes a much stronger case even if the consent is disputed where physical evidence is scanty or circumstantial evidence becomes an important factor in deciding the case. In such instances, the presumption can act as a decisive factor for getting convictions by providing further backup to the testimony of the victim.

-The presumption sets a higher evidentiary bar for the defence. For the defence to rebut the presumption of Sec 120 BSA, it must demonstrate substantial evidence that consent was indeed given. This could be through physical evidence, testimonies, or any other proof that the sexual encounter was indeed with the consent of the victim. The presumption thus places a more significant burden on the accused to prove that consent was present, making the trial less about the victim's testimony and more about whether the defense can rebut the presumption.

Section 121: Estoppel

Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is an important section postulates the Doctrine of Estoppel with the objective of preventing any party from being allowed to state something different from what was previously said or done with regard to the same matter and it is meant to maintain the principle of fair play, certainty, and integrity by preventing a party from denying or contradicting what he has previously brought home to the mind and conscience of another.

Estoppel is a basic principle of law that prevents a party from asserting or denying any fact that is inconsistent with its previous conduct, representation, or statements when another party has relied upon such representation.

It makes it clear that if a person causes another to believe a certain fact and the latter acts on such belief, the former cannot subsequently deny the truth of that fact in any legal proceeding.

Essentials:

-The party who is asserting estoppel must establish that the other party has made some representation regarding some present fact. The said representation could be either explicit-a statement or implicit-an act or omission.

-There must exist an intention of the first party to represent to the other party to rely upon it and to act in a certain way.

-The second party must have relied on the representation made by the first party. Such reliance is essential to form the estoppel.

-The second party must have taken action, changed his legal position or made decisions based on the belief induced by the representation. This may be an actual financial transaction, a contractual agreement or any other act influenced by the belief of the truth of the representation.

-The party who made the representation cannot later deny the truth of the matter in dispute. Any attempt to retract or contradict the earlier representation would be legally impermissible in the context of the legal proceedings.

Example:

A sold a plot of land claiming it to be his. A fraudulently represented that the plot belonged to him. B relied on such representations and bought the plot from A. When the sale is executed, A claims that the sale is void since he never was the owner of the plot.

Here, A's assertion of ownership caused B to act in reliance on that belief-that is, by purchasing the land. Under Section 121, A is barred from denying the truth of his earlier statement of fact concerning ownership in any action. This is because B relied on A's representation to his detriment.

Important points:

-Estoppel prevents parties from making contradictory statements or retraction of their earlier statement or actions after another party has reasonably relied on such statement or action. This would result in ensuring fairness between parties so that no party would gain unfair advantage over another party.

-Estoppel prevents contradictory claims and, hence, encourages consistency and legal certainty in relationships and transactions. It ensures that representations made by people, particularly in business and contractual matters, are treated as binding unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

-The doctrine of estoppel promotes honest and truthful business dealings. Individuals will desist from fraudulent and unethical practices since they would be confronted and brought to justice on account of their misleading conduct in judicial as well as commercial affairs.

Section 122: Estoppel of Tenant and Licensee

Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines estoppel of the tenant and licensee regarding the immovable property in terms of tenancy and licensing agreement. The provision is vital for providing the legal limits through which tenants and licensees operate, especially regarding title to the property occupied by them.

It aims towards preventing disputes of tenancy and licensing during occupation as well as even after vacation by tenants and licensees over the ownership of a property to ensure stability and clarity of rights over properties in landlord-tenant and licensor-licensee relationships.

This provision creates two distinct estoppel rules:

1. Tenants' Estoppel:

A tenant cannot, at the start of the tenancy or at any time during the term of the tenancy, question the title of the landlord to the property. This means that when a tenant accepts tenancy, he is then held to be bound by law to respect the ownership of the landlord and cannot later question the validity of the title of the landlord to the property.

2. Estoppel of Licensees:

A person who enters immovable property with the permission of the person in possession, that is, a licensee, is estopped from denying that the person granting the license had title to the property at the time when the license was granted. This protects the title of the person giving the license and ensures that licensees cannot later dispute the authority of the licensor to grant them access.

Important points:

-It bars tenants and licensees from denying the title of their landlord or licensor. This helps to avert possible disputes and litigations on the question of ownership of the property. It ensures that the issue of ownership of the property is settled before a tenancy or licensing agreement is created, thereby allowing for legal certainty and narrowing the scope for post-agreement disputes.

-The policy underlying this section promotes good faith dealings between landlords and tenants or licensors and licensees. If a tenant accepts possession or a licensee is granted access to property, both parties thereby implicitly agree to accept the ownership claims of the holder of the property. Such an approach encourages transparency, trust, and stability in all property transactions and agreements. It prevents parties from raising later that the property rights are not legitimate once parties have accepted the terms of the arrangement.

-This section stops the tenants and licensees from raising any question against the title of a property owner or licensor. This would be to protect the rights of the landlord or the licensor not to be unduly pressurized on being questioned over the ownership or the right to let others hold possession. Thus, the section also guards the integrity of the property rights.

Section 123: Estoppel of Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, Bailee, or Licensee

Section 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the estoppel doctrine for certain parties in commercial and property transactions. The provisions relate to the acceptor of a bill of exchange, bailees, and licensees. This helps ensure that such transactions occur without any party contradicting its earlier representations regarding the authority, rights, or responsibilities.

It holds that authority of the drawer to draw and endorse a bill of exchange cannot be assailed by one who accepts it. Every person or corporation which accepts a bill incurs a liability to abide with the presumption that the drawer possesses such authority as entitles him to make the bill. The acceptor is estopped from questioning the right of the drawer to draw or endorse the bill once he or she has accepted it.

On similar terms, a Bailee or licensee cannot raise the dispute when the agreement is entered regarding the authority of the bailor or licensor to set up a bailment or confer the license at the time of its acceptance. Therefore, in so far as the bailment or license is accepted, there lies no right for the bailee or licensee to dispute at the time the bailor or licensor has the right to hand over possession or give permission.

Under section 123 however, certain exceptions to the general rule of estoppel are recognized, as follows:

-An acceptor of bill of exchange, may challenge whether the said bill was, in fact, truly drawn or endorsed by a person whom it purports to have been so drawn or endorsed by.

-A bailee may attack the very existence of a bailment on grounds of having shown that the goods had been delivered to a third party, who had some just claim or right thereto against the bailor. -This is the safeguard to ensure that no bailee should be made unjustly bound by an agreement entered into in regard to an alleged bailment when goods had been delivered to somebody other than the real bailor.

Important points:

-It prevents an acceptor of a bill of exchange from questioning the authority of the drawer, thereby promoting confidence and certainty in commercial transactions involving bills of exchange. This certainty is important for the smooth running of commercial dealings because it allows the parties involved in the exchange to rely on the presumed authority of the drawer.

-The provision protects bailees and licensees from being unfairly deprived of their rights. Section 123 by estopping them from questioning the authority of the bailor or licensor, ensures that the party acquiring possession or rights under a bailment or license will not later be able to defeat the validity of the authority of the original grantor.

-The doctrine of estoppel precludes parties from taking conflicting positions once they have accepted benefits, rights, or authority granted under an agreement. The doctrine of estoppel does ensure fairness in court procedure and prevents opportunism in which a party may later deny the validity of its acceptance of the terms of an agreement or transaction.