Section 106 Evidence Act attracted when prosecution establishes chain of events: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies when the chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution [Sabitri Samantaray and anr. v. State of Odisha]..A bench of the Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed that the prosecution is not absolved of the burden to establish the guilt of the accused but, once it has established a chain of events showing their guilt, it is on the accused to prove otherwise.Section 106 lays down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events," the judgment stated..The Supreme Court was considering the appeals moved by a married couple who were convicted by the the Sessions Court Jaipur under Sections 302 (murder) , 201(causing disappearance of evidence of offence) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. Later, the High Court of Odisha upheld the conviction but modified the conviction under Section 302 to one under Section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of ₹10,000. The High Court modified the sentence on the ground that there was a strong possibility of existence of grave and sudden provocation. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court..The key issue for determination before the apex court was whether the prosecution had successfully discharged the burden of proof, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.Going through the provision , the Court noted that it postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. "Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution," the Court noted in its judgment..In the instant case, the Court found that the prosecution had indeed successfully established the intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence, and a chain of events. Therefore, the burden to prove otherwise now fell on the appellants as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the High Court was right to hold so, the top court said.Accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the appellants were directed to surrender before the trial court. .Advocate Debasis Panda appeared for the appellants and Advocate Suvendu Dash appeared for the Respondent. .[Read Judgment]