Source: Gauhati High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr., has held that the accused has a right to remain silent and the burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the accused under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) when multiple witnesses to the crime were present.

What was the Background of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant had killed the 26 year old son of Smti. Sukurmoni Nayak by hacking him with a dao over the catapult and she had prayed to take necessary action against the appellant.
• A case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellant.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal has been filed before the Gauhati High Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench comprising of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that when the offence of murder was allegedly committed in daylight in the presence of witnesses, by applying the provisions of Section 106 of IEA, the burden of proof cannot be put upon the appellant to disprove the allegations and explain the circumstances relating to death of the deceased. Thus, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is found to be perverse.

What is Section 106 of IEA?

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.
• 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.

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:

• In 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.