CASE LAW ON BURDEN OF PROOF

Balveer Singh vs State of Uttarakhand – 06.10.2023

SUPREME COURT:

IEA 1872 | Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not naturally place the burden of proof on the accused, rather it applies when the accused fails to give any explanation as to facts which must be within his knowledge, such facts as are consistent with his Can support the principles…

An important analysis of the Supreme Court regarding Section 106

Section 106 of the Evidence Act When a fact is specifically within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on 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.

>> Section 106 cannot be used to compensate for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.

→ This section is not used to support a conviction unless unless the prosecution establishes the crime

Has not discharged the responsibility by proving all the necessary elements.

> It does not relieve the prosecution from the duty of proving that an offense was committed even if it is specifically the case with the knowledge of the accused and it does not place the burden on the accused to show that no offense was committed Was.

> Presuming the guilt of the accused in the absence of reasonable explanation in a case where other circumstances are not sufficient to explain it, is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. Therefore, unless a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the responsibility does not shift to the accused.