SC Reiterates: Prosecution Must Prove the Case — Section 106 Can’t Be Used to Shift Burden on Accused
- ByAdmin --
- 23 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a recent and significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the limits of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stating that it does not shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. Instead, the Court reinforced a fundamental principle of criminal law — every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it is the State’s responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment draws a clear line to prevent misuse of Section 106 in trials where the accused is expected to explain facts known only to them — particularly in sensitive or closed-room cases. But that expectation, the Court said, can arise only after the prosecution has done its job: build a credible case.
Key Legal Provisions Revisited
- Article 21, Constitution of India
Protects every individual’s right to life and personal liberty and lays the foundation for a fair trial.
- Section 101, Indian Evidence Act
Places the burden of proof on the person who makes an assertion — typically, the prosecution in a criminal case.
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act
Applies when certain facts are only within the knowledge of the accused — but only after a prima facie case is established.
- Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Allows courts to question the accused to seek explanations about the evidence presented during trial.
What the Supreme Court Said
The top court was clear: Section 106 is not a shortcut for the prosecution. It cannot be used to plug holes in weak or incomplete evidence. The provision is meant to be a supportive tool — not the main strategy — and it comes into play only when the prosecution has already made a strong case.
Some of the Court’s key observations:
- The accused's right to remain silent cannot be used against them unless the prosecution has already laid a solid foundation.
- Section 106 cannot override Section 101, which keeps the burden firmly on the prosecution.
- Courts must avoid drawing hasty inferences simply because the accused didn’t explain a particular fact.
At a Glance: What This Means
- Burden of proof stays with prosecution: Even if the accused has private knowledge, the prosecution must lead with strong evidence first.
- Section 106 is secondary: It can be invoked only when necessary, not as a substitute for proper investigation.
- Silence is not guilt: An accused person choosing not to speak doesn't amount to an admission of guilt.
- Protects Article 21 rights: Ensures fair trial standards and reinforces that assumptions can’t replace evidence.
- Guards against lazy prosecutions: Prevents law enforcement or prosecutors from relying solely on what the accused doesn’t say.
- Useful, but limited: Section 106 may be relevant in cases like custodial violence, dowry deaths, or crimes committed in private settings—but not in isolation.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling is a timely reminder that fair trial rights are not technicalities—they’re fundamental protections. It reaffirms that criminal law in India is guided by the principle of “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” not convenience or presumption.
- Courts are cautioned to look for concrete proof, not just silence.
- Accused individuals cannot be forced to prove their innocence unless the prosecution has first demonstrated probable guilt.
- Trial courts now have clear direction to avoid misapplying Section 106, especially in emotionally charged or circumstantial cases.
In Conclusion
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: Section 106 is a supporting tool, not a primary one. It does not override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent, nor does it dilute the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt.
This judgment strengthens the fairness of the criminal justice process and ensures that our courts continue to follow a system rooted in evidence, not in assumption. It reinforces that constitutional rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 are not up for negotiation, even when the stakes are high or the facts are complex.
RELATED Blog
0 comments