Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anees v. The State Govt of NCT has expounded the principles relating to the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

What was the Background of Anees v. The State Govt of NCT Case?

• In this case, the deceased, namely, Saira was married to the appellant.
• On the fateful night of the incident, an altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased and as a result, the appellant is alleged to have inflicted stab injuries indiscriminately with a knife all over the body of the deceased.
• It is also the case of the prosecution that the minor daughter Shaheena was the sole eyewitness to the incident.
• Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, which culminated in the Sessions Case.
• The Session Judge holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expounded the principles relating to the application Section 106 of IEA which are as follows:
  • The Court should apply Section 106 of the IEA in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases.
  • This Section cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
  • This Section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence.
  • It 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.
  • This Section has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place.
  • This Section would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused.

What is Section 106 of IEA?

About:

• This Section deals with the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
• It states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused.
• This Section comes into play in cases of custodial death, dowry death and in cases of alibi.
• It is only an exception to Section 101 of IEA.

Objectives:

• This Section promotes the idea of a fair trial where it becomes easy to prove all the possible facts and have no burden to prove something that is impossible and benefits the accused.
• It provides the opportunity for the accused to rebut the presumption of facts which is derived from the series of facts.

Illustration:

• When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

Case Law

• In Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021), the Supreme Court reinforced that, in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
• In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (1956), the Supreme Court held that word especially stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.