Question

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?

• A. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101
• B. Section 106 is intended to relieve the prosecution of their duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 101
• C. Both A and B
• D. Neither A nor B
• A. A party to the suit/proceeding
• B. A stranger to the suit/proceeding
• C. A witness
• D. None of the above
• A. Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC
• B. Anita v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SC
• C. Abhay v. Union of India, 2024 SC
• D. Anish v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC
• A. 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
• B. 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
• C. 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
• D. Presumptions are irrefutable facts that, once established, cannot be negated by evidence brought forth in the case
• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 and 3
• C. 3 and 4
• D. 1 and 4

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

To solve the question regarding the relationship between Section 101 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872, we must understand their legal context. Section 101 of the IEA outlines that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, Section 106 acts as an exception to this rule. Section 106 is applied in scenarios where certain facts are known exclusively to the accused, and it would be excessively difficult or impossible for the prosecution to prove these facts. This is to avoid the unreasonable expectation that the prosecution should prove facts uniquely within the accused's knowledge. Based on the legal comprehension provided, and the interpretation by Justice Vivian Bose, it's clear that Section 106 is indeed an exception to Section 101, aligning with the principle described in the case of Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer. Therefore, the correct option is: Section 106 is an exception to Section 101.

Answer 2

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act indicates that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon them. This section primarily applies to parties involved in the legal proceedings who would naturally have particular knowledge of certain facts that are central to the issues at hand. In legal terms, it is generally accepted that the term ‘any person’ in Section 106 refers to a party to the suit/proceeding.

According to legal interpretations, such as in the case of Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer, the section is applicable in situations where it is difficult for the prosecution to prove a fact that lies exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant or respondent. The court explained that the prosecution carries the burden of proof, but Section 106 facilitates specific situations where requiring the prosecution to establish a fact would be disproportionately challenging because the fact is solely known to the accused.

Thus, 'any person' refers specifically to the parties involved rather than to external witnesses or unrelated individuals. Hence, the correct application of Section 106 involves the party engaging directly with the legal matter.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court recently expounded the principles relating to the applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in the case of Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 SC. Section 106 addresses situations where it might be practically impossible or disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to prove certain facts that are especially within the knowledge of the accused. While the general rule places the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases, Section 106 creates an exception for cases reliant on circumstantial evidence. If facts are especially within the accused's knowledge, and they fail to reasonably explain them, it may serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances supporting the prosecution's case. This principle was reiterated from historical cases, such as Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer (1956 SCR 199), as well as from established views that the burden does not lie on the accused to prove innocence simply because they possess specific knowledge, as noted in Attygalle v. the King and Seneviratne v. R.

Answer 4

The phrase “Presumptions are like bats, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of facts” suggests that a presumption in legal contexts operates to allocate the burden of proof initially to a party. However, this burden is not permanent and can shift back once credible evidence refuting the presumption is introduced. In simpler terms, a presumption serves to guide the initial phase of a legal argument, but it is the strength and presence of factual evidence that ultimately governs legal decisions. Once rebutting facts are presented, they 'shine light' on the presumption, nullifying its effect. 

The correct interpretation based on the provided options is: "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."

In the legal context, this is supported by the doctrine illustrated in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which emphasizes that the burden of proof typically remains with the prosecution, except in exceptional cases where facts are particularly 'within the knowledge' of the accused. As stated in Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer (1956 SCR 199), the burden can temporarily shift when such a presumption is in play, requiring the defendant to present exculpatory evidence or explanation, especially in cases driven by circumstantial evidence.

Answer 5

From Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, we derive certain theories related to criminal law, specifically dealing with the burden of proof. Section 106 is concerned with situations where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, making it exceptionally onerous for the prosecution to prove those facts. Based on this: 
1. Theory of reverse burden of proof: This emerges directly from Section 106, which implies that when a fact is exclusively within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proof lies on him to clarify those facts. Although, it doesn't mean that the accused must prove he did not commit the crime, it allows for situations where the accused must explain certain circumstances to complete the evidentiary gap.
2. Doctrine of last seen together: This is indirectly related, as it forms part of the circumstantial evidence where the last person seen with the deceased is reasonably expected to explain what happened at that time. The burden of explanation is heavily influenced by Section 106 when the accused claims exclusive knowledge about the circumstances.
Both these theories (2 and 3) are derived from the principles enshrined in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Thus, the correct option is: 2 and 3.