SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT DOES NOT INTEND TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ACCUSED - SC

The Supreme Court held that if the prosecution has failed to prove the basic facts against the accused, the burden of proof cannot be moved to the accused by resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act ("The Act"). Section 106 of the Act is not intended to lessen the prosecutor's duty to prove the guilt of the accused.

In this instant case, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder by the Uttrakhand High Court and Sessions Court. 

Advocate Shikhil Suri appearing for the accused argued there was no convincing evidence given by the prosecution to prove the charges against the appellants. The prosecutor failed to prove the entire chain of events. He further argued that since the appellant happened to be the mother-in-law of the deceased, she was arrested. She was convicted merely based on suspicion and surmises. 

Advocate Krishnam Mishra, appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, argued that there was harassment to the deceased by the accused and on the previous day. He further pressed section 106 of the Act and argued that the accused failed to explain why Shashi left the home on the night of the incident and what the accused did the whole night. 

A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi noted that the investigating officers conducted the entire investigation in a “cursory and shoddy manner”. The IOs did not bother to investigate how the incident took place.

 Regarding section 106, the Court said that the same was mislaid since the provision is not intended to shed the prosecution of the burden of proof. "The prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstances which may compel the court to conclude that the accused had committed the alleged crime, the bench has no hesitance in holding that the Trial Court and the HC committing a gross error of law in convicting the accused".

The bench acquitted the accused.