Comprehension
Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer (1956 SCR 199) the learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus: “This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are ‘especially’ within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word ‘especially’ underscores facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. It added, 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 him whether he did or did not.” It is evident that it cannot be the intention and Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on the accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. the King. 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R, 1936-3 All ER 36 at p.49 (B). In case resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused person’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by S. 106 could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
(Based on facts from State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, AIR 2000SUPREME COURT 2988)
(Based on facts from State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, AIR 2000SUPREME COURT 2988)
Question: 1
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in cases where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, which of the following accurately reflects the relationship between Section 101 and 106 of IEA, 1872?
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in cases where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, which of the following accurately reflects the relationship between Section 101 and 106 of IEA, 1872?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- Section 106 is an exception to Section 101
- Section 106 is intended to relieve the prosecution of their duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 101
- Both A and B
- Neither A nor B
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. However, Section 106 provides an exception, shifting the burden of proof to the accused in certain cases where the facts are within his special knowledge.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
‘Any person’ in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to:
‘Any person’ in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to:
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- A party to the suit/proceeding
- A stranger to the suit/proceeding
- A witness
- None of the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The term ”any person” in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to a party to the suit or proceeding, and not necessarily a stranger or witness. This person is expected to provide evidence related to facts within their knowledge.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
In which of the recent following cases, Supreme Court expounded the principles relating to the applicability of S. 106 of Indian Evidence Act?
In which of the recent following cases, Supreme Court expounded the principles relating to the applicability of S. 106 of Indian Evidence Act?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC
- Anita v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SC
- Abhay v. Union of India, 2024 SC
- Anish v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Statement (A) is correct: In the case of Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC, the Supreme Court expounded on the applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The section deals with the burden of proof where a party has special knowledge regarding a fact.
Statement (B) is incorrect: This case does not expound the principles relating to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Statement (C) is incorrect: Abhay v. Union of India does not deal with the applicability of Section 106.
Statement (D) is incorrect: Similarly, Anish v. The State Govt. of NCT does not focus on Section 106.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
What is the phrase “Presumptions are like bats, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of facts” indicate?
What is the phrase “Presumptions are like bats, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of facts” indicate?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- Presumption shifts the burden of proof to the party against whom the presumption operates, but the burden shifts back to the original party once rebutting facts are presented
- Presumption is a substantive piece of evidence and it completely relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof, as longs as the presumption is established in the beginning of the trial
- There are different categories of presumptions and the highest degree of presumption shifts the burden of proof permanently to the accused, who must disprove the presumption beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumptions are irrefutable facts that, once established, cannot be negated by evidence brought forth in the case
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The phrase illustrates that presumptions are not irrefutable. They can be rebutted if evidence disproving them is presented, thus shifting the burden of proof back to the original party.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the theories emanate from Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act?
1. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
2. Theory of reverse burden of proof
3. Doctrine of last seen together
4. Presumption of innocence
Select the correct option:
Which of the theories emanate from Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act?
1. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
2. Theory of reverse burden of proof
3. Doctrine of last seen together
4. Presumption of innocence
Select the correct option:
1. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
2. Theory of reverse burden of proof
3. Doctrine of last seen together
4. Presumption of innocence
Select the correct option:
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- 1 and 2
- 2 and 3
- 3 and 4
- 1 and 4
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Section 106 is linked to the theory of reverse burden of proof (where the accused must disprove certain facts) and the doctrine of last seen together (relevant in criminal cases involving circumstantial evidence).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Criminal Law
- What is the minimum punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt using acid under BNS?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Which section under BNS criminalizes voyeurism, defined as capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act without consent?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Corporate Criminal liability is well established in India and clarified by Supreme Court in various decisions. Which among the following cases is not relevant to the topic?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. What is the nature of his offence as per the general principles of criminal law?
Inchoate Crime
Impossible Attempt
Immature Offence- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Which of the following is incorrectly matched?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions