Issues
- Applicability of section 106 of the Evidence Act in the case of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof.
- The burden of proof on the accused, in case of applicability of section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Held
- The Apex Court confirmed the conviction of the accused persons as the prosecution has successfully established the chain pointing towards guilt of the accused and the accused have failed to offer any credible defense in this regard.
- Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things that are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention, then the facts which are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
- Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where the chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades a response or offers a response that is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.
- The prosecution had thus succeeded in establishing the intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence. Such an intention, when analysed in the light of the statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case that the death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise.
Relevant Para No.
- 18, 19, 24 & 26