Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not inherently impose a burden on the accused but comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, facts that could support theories compatible with their innocence.The Court observed, “We consider the true rule to be that Section 106 does not cast any burden upon an accused in a criminal trial, but that, where the accused throws no light at all upon the facts which ought to be especially within his knowledge, and which could support any theory of hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any explanation, in consonance with the principle laid in Deonandan Mishra's case.”In the present case relating to murder and domestic cruelty of a wife, the court found that the circumstances presented by the prosecution constituted more than a prima facie case. This allowed the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thereby shifting the burden to the accused husband to explain the events surrounding his wife's death.The Court also highlighted the significant role of the judiciary, particularly in cases involving crimes against women. It emphasizes the need for courts to take a practical view of legitimate inferences drawn from evidence, whether circumstantial or direct. It held. “The role of courts in such circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation or insignificant lacunas in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crimes against women.”The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Uttarakhand HC which affirmed the conviction of appellant(husband) under section 302 and 498-A IPC and mother-in-law under section 498-A IPC respectively.The deceased, namely, Sudha was married to Balvir Singh in 1997. On 02.06.2007, her father moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotdwar, Garhwal seeking a direction to the Police to register an FIR in connection with the death of his daughter in suspicious circumstances. An FIR was registered under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.The trial court convicted the husband for the offense of murder under section 302 IPC and for causing harassment under section 498-A IPC. However, the mother-in-law was acquitted of the charges of murder and was only convicted under section 498-A IPC.The appellants challenged this decision before the HC which did not interfere with it.Aggrieved by the same, they approached the Supreme Court.The Court noted that the cause of the woman's death was determined to be poisoning, It dismissed the appellant's claim that the aluminum phosphide might have been a result of medicines taken for a heart ailment. In a medico-legal matter, the court found it difficult to believe that if the deceased had been taken to the hospital and declared dead on arrival, the hospital authorities would have permitted the husband to take her body home.The court highlighted the suspicious conduct of the appellant(husband) for failing to inform the deceased's family members about her death. The deceased had also written two letters to her father, expressing her desperate need for 1 lakh rupees to save her life, further complicating the circumstances surrounding the case.PRINCIPLES OF LAW GOVERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACTIt is pertinent to note Section 106 of the Evidence Act which states that “The burden of proving a fact, especially within knowledge.— When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”The Court clarified that Section 106 is an exception to the general rule under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the prosecution.The Court opined “It is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”.The Court referred to a catena of cases that have shed light on the interpretation of section 106 of the Evidence Act.In the case of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (AIR 1956 SC 404), the Court, through the words of Justice Vivian Bose, emphasized that the term "especially" underscores facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the accused's knowledge. It added, “If the section were to be...

Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains

Suraj Parmar

Tags