S.106 Evidence Act Must Be Applied With Care, Can't Be Used To Make Up Prosecution's Inability : Supreme Court Explains Principles

The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be applied in criminal cases unless the prosecution succeeds in establishing a prima facie case.  

As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof of proving things which are in the special knowledge of a person is on that person. If a fact is within the special knowledge of the accused, then the burden to prove such fact for the defence shifts to the accused.

The Court reminded that Section 106 of the Evidence Act must be used in criminal cases with "care and caution."

"Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

"This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused."

The Court explained that Section 106 refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the accused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge which would render the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him.

"Positive facts must always be proved by the prosecution. But the same rule cannot always apply to negative facts. It is not for the prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused," the Court explained.

The Court was dealing with a case where a man was accused of murdering his wife within the confines of their home at night. The prosecution had relied on Section 106 to argue that it was incumbent on the accused to explain how his wife happened to die within the four corners of their house at night when there was no evidence of entry by any outsider.

The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan stated :

"When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. He is not required to do so even though a prima facie case has been established, for the court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict. However, the accused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by the court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might arise therefrom. Although not legally required to produce evidence on his own behalf, the accused may therefore as a practical matter find it essential to go forward with proof. This does not alter the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution."

Reference was made to Anees v. State Govt. of NCT 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344 and Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861.

"Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused," the Court said.

In the present case, the following circumstances were regarded as the prima facie facts which justified the application of Section 106.

1. The offence took place inside the four walls of the house in which the respondent accused, the deceased and their 7-year-old daughter were living. The respondent accused has not disputed his presence in the house at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The failure on the part of the accused to inform the family members about the death of their daughter and the clandestine manner in which her body was cremated, more particularly when her family members were residing in the very same village. By the time the Investigating Officer reached the place of incident the body of the deceased was fully burnt.
3. The dubious conduct of the respondent accused in fleeing away from home leaving behind his minor daughter of seven years age all alone.
4. The untimely death of the deceased in suspicious circumstances, occurring shortly after a fight with the respondent-accused two to three days before the incident, coupled with evidence of their strained relationship.
5. The respondent accused maintained complete silence. In other words, has failed to explain any of the incriminating circumstances pointing a finger against him.

Allowing the State's appeal, the Court set aside the acquittal of the accused.

Also from the judgment- 'Child A Competent Witness' : Supreme Court Summarizes Law On Child Witness Testimony

Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH