The Supreme Court recently held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not inherently impose a burden on the accused but comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, facts that could support theories compatible with their innocence.

The Court observed, “We consider the true rule to be that Section 106 does not cast any burden upon an accused in a criminal trial, but that, where the accused throws no light at all upon the facts which ought to be especially within his knowledge, and which could support any theory of hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any explanation, in consonance with the principle laid in Deonandan Mishra’s case.”

The Supreme Court on Friday answered an important question that what is “Prima Facie” in the Context of Sec 106 of Evidence Act.

In the case before the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, they were tasked with reviewing an appeal that challenged a previous judgment issued by the High Court. The High Court had found the husband of the appellant guilty of two distinct offenses. Firstly, he was held accountable for the crime of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Secondly, he was charged with an offense punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

The case revolved around the unfortunate demise of Sudha, who was married to a man named Balvir Singh. Sudha's father, Virendra Singh, took legal action by filing an application in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. He invoked Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to request a directive to the police. Specifically, Virendra Singh sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) related to the suspicious circumstances surrounding his daughter's death.

This legal proceeding appears to be a significant and complex case, likely involving a thorough investigation into Sudha's untimely demise and the subsequent criminal charges against her husband under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra would have had to carefully review the facts, evidence, and legal arguments presented in the appeal to arrive at a fair and just decision.

FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Trial Court held the husband guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for causing harassment punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

The appellants, dissatisfied with the judgment and conviction delivered by the trial court, decided to pursue their case by appealing to the High Court. However, their appeals met with a similar outcome as the High Court also upheld the convictions. In this context, the Supreme Court stepped in to provide a significant legal observation.

The Supreme Court noted that the use of Section 106 of the relevant legal code cannot be employed as a means to compensate for the prosecution's inability to present evidence that points to the guilt of the accused. Instead, this section should only be invoked once the prosecution has successfully discharged the burden of proving all the essential elements required to establish the offense in question. Section 106 does not excuse the prosecution from its duty to demonstrate that a crime has indeed taken place, even if certain aspects of that crime are specifically within the knowledge of the accused. It also does not impose the responsibility on the accused to demonstrate that no crime was committed.

The Supreme Court emphasized that inferring the guilt of the accused solely from the absence of a reasonable explanation, especially in cases where the other circumstances on their own are insufficient to warrant such an explanation, would unjustly relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. Therefore, until the prosecution has established a prima facie case through its evidence, the onus of proof does not shift to the accused.

This legal observation highlights the principle that the prosecution bears the responsibility of presenting sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is not obligated to prove their innocence unless a prima facie case has been established against them. It underscores the importance of a fair and balanced legal process in criminal proceedings.

The bench's statement underscores an important principle in legal proceedings: the burden of proof generally remains fixed on the party making an affirmative proposition that is essential to establish the foundation of an issue. This burden does not shift throughout the case. However, the burden of producing evidence or providing an explanation may shift between the parties based on the testimony and evidence presented.

In cases where the prosecution has introduced evidence that, if accepted by the court, would convince them of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it then becomes the accused's responsibility to present counter-vailing evidence if they possess such evidence to support their defense. This shift in the burden of evidence means that the accused, when confronted with strong prosecution evidence, should provide evidence in their favor to refute the allegations.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's opinion emphasizes that when specific facts are known primarily to the accused and not easily accessible to others, the burden is on the accused to produce evidence related to those facts, whether they are affirmative or negative in nature. However, this obligation does not arise merely because a prima facie case has been established; the court must still find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can occur.

Failure by the accused to present evidence on their behalf may be considered by the court as confirming the conclusions suggested by the prosecution's evidence or reinforcing any presumptions that could have been challenged. In essence, the accused's decision to provide or withhold evidence can significantly impact the outcome of the case.

This legal perspective underscores the importance of a fair and balanced legal process where both the prosecution and the defense have their roles and responsibilities in presenting their respective cases and ensuring justice is served.

The case of Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar plays a pivotal role in establishing the legal principles surrounding Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In this case, it was explicitly stated that the accused is under no obligation to provide any explanation, and no burden is cast upon them to do so. Importantly, the onus of proof does not shift concerning the crucial matter of establishing guilt at any stage of a criminal trial.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that Section 106 does not impose a burden on the accused during a criminal trial. However, it clarified that when the accused fails to shed any light on facts that should be within their knowledge and which could support any theory or hypothesis compatible with their innocence, the court can take this failure into consideration. This aligns with the principles established in the Deonandan Mishra case.

In essence, while Section 106 does not force the accused to provide an explanation, the court may consider their failure to do so when it seems that the accused possesses information crucial to the case but chooses not to share it. This serves to ensure that all relevant facts are considered during the trial, allowing the court to make a fair and informed decision.

These legal principles underscore the delicate balance between the rights of the accused and the need for a comprehensive examination of the facts in criminal proceedings. The accused has the right to remain silent and is not compelled to testify or provide an explanation, but this silence may be taken into account by the court when assessing the evidence and determining guilt or innocence.