S.106 The law on evidence must be applied carefully, it cannot be used to make the inability of criminal prosecution: the Supreme Court explains the principles

The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 106 of the Law on Indian evidence of 1872 cannot be applied in criminal cases, unless the criminal prosecution manages to establish a front case.

According to Section 106 of the Law on evidence, the proof of proof of the proof of things that are in the special knowledge of a person is on that person. If a fact is in the special knowledge of the accused, then the task of demonstrating such a fact for defense goes to the accused.

The court reminded that section 106 of the law on evidence must be used in criminal cases with “care and caution”.

“Section 106 cannot be invoked to compensate for the inability of criminal prosecution produces evidence of circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused. “ noticed the bank comprising Justice Jb Pardiwala and Justice r Mahadevan.

–This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the criminal prosecution has downloaded the ONUS, proving all the necessary elements to establish the crime. It does not eliminate the criminal prosecution of the duty to prove that a crime has been committed, even if it is a matter in particular in the knowledge of the accused and does not throw the accused’s burden to show that no crime has been committed. In order to deduce the accused’s guilt from the absence of a reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not alone enough to request his explanation is to exempt the criminal prosecution of his legitimate task. Therefore, until a first case is established by such evidence, the UNS does not change to the accused. “

The court explained that section 106 refers to the cases in which the accused’s guilt is established on the evidence of criminal prosecution, unless the accused is able to demonstrate other facts, in particular in his knowledge, which would make the evidence of pursuit to be reckless. If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation that can be reasonably true in the proven circumstances, the accused receives the benefit of reasonable doubts, although it may not prove undoubtedly 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 is a circumstance that can turn the scale against him.

“Positive facts must always be proven by criminal prosecution. But the same rule cannot always apply to negative facts. It is not for criminal prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defenses or circumstances that can exonerate an accused,” explained the court.

The court faced a case in which a man was accused of killing his wife within the limits of their house at night. The criminal prosecution was based on section 106 to claim that he was accused of explaining how his wife happened to die in the four corners of their house at night, when there was no entry evidence by any foreigners.

The decision authorized by the Mahadevan justice said:

“When the facts are particularly in the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposal is affirmative or negative. He is not obliged to do this, even if a first facie has been established, because the court must continue to find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being able to condemn. Presented by the criminal prosecution or presumption of confirmation that may occur. supporting the criminal prosecution. “

Referred to Anees v. State Govt. from NCT 2024 Livelaw (SC) 344 and Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 Livelaw (SC) 861.

“Section 106 of the Law on evidence was applied to cases in which the criminal prosecution could be said to prove facts from which a reasonable inference regarding the accused’s guilt can be drawn,” Said the court.

In this case, the following circumstances were considered the first facial rights that justified the application of section 106.

1. The crime took place inside the four walls of the house where their respondent, deceased and their 7 -year -old daughter lived. The accused respondent did not challenge his presence in the house at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The failure of the accused to inform the family members about the death of their daughter and the clandestine way in which her body was incinerated, especially when her family members lived in the same village. When the investigation officer arrived at the incident site, the deceased’s body was completely burned.
3. The dubious leadership of the respondent accused of ran away from the house, leaving behind his minor daughter of seven -year -olds.
4. The premature death of the deceased in suspicious circumstances, which took place shortly after a fight with the respondent-led two to three days before the incident, accompanied by evidence of their tightened relationship.
5. The accused respondent maintained full silence. In other words, he failed to explain any of the incriminating circumstances that indicate a finger against him.

By allowing the state’s appeal, the court annulled the payment of the accused.

Also from judgment “A child a competent witness”: the Supreme Court summarizes the law on the testimony of the witnesses of the child

Case title: Madhya Pradesh State to Balveer Singh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20uokg_eni