In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has elucidated the principles relating to the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule( Section 101 of the Evidence Act) that the burden of proof is on the person who is asserting the existence of a fact. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, if any fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on him.
While deciding a criminal appeal, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expounded the principles relating to Section 106.
The appeal was filed by a man who was found guilty of the murder of his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Since the offence was committed during the wee hours within the house of the convict where there was no one else except the deceased wife and their five-year-old daughter, the prosecution invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act asking the accused to explain the incident.
While deciding the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala discussed the ambit of Section 106.
The Court stated that Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of their duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, 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 stated that Section 106 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.
