LI Network
Published on: October 9, 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court of India clarified the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, stating that it does not inherently burden the accused but becomes relevant when the accused fails to provide any explanation about facts within their knowledge that could support their innocence.
The judgment, delivered by the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Mishra, emphasized that Section 106 does not impose an initial burden on the accused but becomes significant when the accused does not shed light on essential facts pertinent to their case.
The case in question involved allegations of murder and domestic cruelty against a husband, Balvir Singh, and his mother-in-law. The prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.
The court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the accused to explain the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death.
The court highlighted the importance of this section, especially in cases involving crimes against women.
The judgment underscored that courts should take a practical view of legitimate inferences drawn from evidence, whether direct or circumstantial.
It emphasized the judiciary’s crucial role, stating that courts must handle such cases realistically and not permit criminals to escape justice due to procedural technicalities or minor gaps in evidence.
The court urged sensitivity in cases involving crimes against women, stressing the need for realistic and just resolutions.
The ruling clarified that Section 106 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proving a fact, especially within the knowledge of the accused, upon them.
This provision, an exception to the general burden of proof on the prosecution under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, applies in exceptional cases where it is difficult for the prosecution to establish facts known only to the accused.
The court cited several precedents to explain the interpretation and application of Section 106.
Regarding the burden of proof, the court distinguished between the burden of proof upon an affirmative proposition, which remains with the prosecution, and the burden of evidence or explanation, which may shift from one side to the other.
The court clarified that the accused must provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation or evidence, especially when unique knowledge about critical events is within their possession.
In this case, the accused failed to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death. Despite his claims, there was no substantial evidence supporting his account, leading the court to dismiss his appeal.
The court underscored that the absence of an explanation or a false explanation from the accused could be an additional link that completes the chain of evidence against them.
This judgment provides a significant clarification on the principles governing Section 106 of the Evidence Act, ensuring a fair and just application of the law while holding individuals accountable for their actions.
Also Read: Onus of Proof