Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 106: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) 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.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 106
-
Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra
Appellant was convicted for matricide-killing of one’s own mother. By the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court.
-
Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka
In the instant case, whether the motive projected and the crime has been proved and whether the circumstances lead to the culpability of the accused.
-
Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D)
Whether the suit land was sold to 5th defendant by 1st defendant-Karta for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of his daughter ‘K’.
-
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the accused-appellants.
-
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable…
-
M/s Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the EPF Authorities were justified in treating the appellant and the Respondent No.3 as one unit for the purpose of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
-
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
-
Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting the appellants for offence u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
-
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC, and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959.
-
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act; appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High Court; and the appeal…
-
A. Raja v. D. Kumar
Whether the Appellant belongs to the Hindu Parayan caste in the State of Kerala and is covered by the 1950 Order insofar as it relates to the State of Kerala; whether the Appellant had still retained the Hindu Parayan…
-
The State of Chattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc.
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the criminal appeal preferred by accused-respondent and dismissing acquittal appeal preferred by the State, thereby acquitting both the accused persons.
-
Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr.
What are the parameters that a High Court should keep in mind while granting or refusing a leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.
-
Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the conviction of the accused u/s.120B and 411 IPC, when the seized gold bars are not the same gold bars linked to the fraudulent transactions.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik
Whether the appellant-Corporation is guilty of suggestio falsi by not disclosing what it had pleaded before the MACT and suppresio veri by suppressing the award; whether the High Court was justified in exercising review…
-
Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellants-husband and mother-in-law of the deceased-wife and held them both guilty of offences under the Penal…
-
Ravi v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant-husband for the murder of his wife.
-
Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.
-
Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal.
-
Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO); what is the underlying distinction between sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of the POCSO; whether, mere…
-
Prem Prakash v. Union of India Through
When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023)…
-
Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. The State of Assam & Ors.
The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
-
Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi
Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure,…
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Mahakali Sujatha v. The Branch Manager, Future Generali
The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The controversy in the…
-
Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI
The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s.…
-
Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala
Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/ ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the conviction,…
-
Ravinder Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to…
-
M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC.
-
Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the…
- Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma
-
Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
The High Court affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court holding appellant-hus band guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s.302 of the IPC alongwith the offence punishable u/s. 498A…
- Buddhadeb Saha & Ors. v. The State of West
- R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka
- State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan
- M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani
- Digambar v. The State of Maharashtra
- Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi
- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra
- Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda Etc. v. State of
- Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Ram Gopal S/O Mansharam v. State of Madhya
- Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan
- Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam
- Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. v. State by Ulsoor Ps
- Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu Etc.
- Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha
- Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc v. State of Karnataka
- Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Satye Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand
- Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Jaikam Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Pradeep S/O Rajkumar Jain v. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & Ors.
- Hamid Ali Khan (D) Through Lrs. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Parubai v. The State of Maharashtra
- Surajdeo Mahto and Anr. v. The State of Bihar
- Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd.
- Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
- Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
- Paul v. State of Kerala
- Saeeda Khatoon Arshi v. State of UP & Anr
- Kalu Alias Laxminarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- H Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore (Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.446-447 of 2019) in
- Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Ravi S/O Ashok Ghumare v. The State of Maharashtra
- Smt. Gargi v. State of Haryana
- Sunita v. State of Haryana
- G H Ranjit Kumar Haldar v. State of Sikkim
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) v. Union of India and Others
- Sirajul Hoque v. The State of Assam & Ors.
- Sunita & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
- Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam
- Asar Mohammad and Ors. v. The State of U.P.
- Chandra Bhawan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Mangla Ram v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India & Anr.
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- Nathiya v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore
- Jose @ Pappachan v. The Sub-Lnspector of Police, Koyilandy & Another
- Dhal Singh Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Jamnadas v. State of M.P.
- State of Hlmachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi
- Harijan Bhala Teja v. State of Gujarat
- Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra
- Mangu Singh v. Dharmendra & Anr.
- Nizam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan