Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) now Section 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the accused has duty to offer explanations when the offence was committed within privacy of their house.            

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police.  

What was the Background of Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police Case? 

• The appeal arises from a judgment by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dated 4th March 2015, in State vs. Uma & Ors., which overturned an acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Thoothukudi, and convicted the appellants under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The prosecution alleged that Rajalakshmi’s murder on August 23, 2008, was orchestrated by her husband, Ravi, with the involvement of his aunt, Uma, and uncle, Balasubramanian, due to Ravi’s illicit relationship with Uma. 
• This relationship created friction in Rajalakshmi’s marriage, culminating in her alleged murder. 
• Medical evidence, including postmortem reports, revealed injuries inconsistent with suicide and indicated strangulation and suffocation, leading to her death. 
• The Trial Court initially acquitted the accused due to a lack of direct evidence and deemed the suggested motive not relevant. 
• However, upon appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the evidence, finding sufficient proof of homicidal death and motive, and convicted the appellants based on circumstantial and medical evidence aligning with the prosecution’s narrative. 
• The appellants argued procedural errors in the High Court's reversal of the acquittal and claimed lack of direct evidence, absence of a proven motive, and inadmissibility of certain confessions under Section 27 of the IEA. 
• The State defended the High Court’s re-appreciation of evidence, maintaining that the cumulative medical and circumstantial evidence pointed to the appellants' guilt. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The silence of the Appellants in informing P.W.-1 or the family of the deceased of her death, also speaks volume of their conduct.  
• Undisputedly, the Appellants and the Deceased resided together since the marriage of the Deceased to Accused No.2, which substantiates their presence at the time of occurrence of the incident; and consequently the invocation of Section 106 of IEA cannot be faulted. 
• In terms of Section 106 of the IEA, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them. 

What are the Provisions with Regards the burden of proving a fact especially within knowledge?  

• Section 109 BSA, 2023 (Section 106 of IEA, 1872): Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. 
• 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 . 
  • Section 101 of IEA (Section 104 of BSA):  
    • Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.  
    • When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 
  • 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  
  • 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. 
  • 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.