SC Clarifies Section 106 IEA Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in Prosecution’s Case

New Delhi, February 25, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) cannot be invoked to compensate for the prosecution’s inability to prove the circumstances leading to an accused’s guilt.

The verdict was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in a criminal appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the acquittal of an accused under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Apex Court observed that Section 106 cannot be used to shift the burden of proof onto the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case. The ruling reinstates the conviction of the accused, overturning the High Court’s acquittal.

SC: Section 106 IEA Must Be Applied with Caution

The Supreme Court underscored the need for careful application of Section 106 IEA in criminal cases, stating:

“Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section does not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove that a crime was committed, even if the facts lie within the special knowledge of the accused.”

The Bench clarified that a conviction cannot be sustained merely because the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation. Instead, the prosecution must first establish a strong chain of circumstantial evidence before shifting the burden onto the accused.

Case Background: Husband Accused of Wife’s Murder

The case involved a 2003 incident where a woman was allegedly murdered by her husband. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim’s minor daughter, who allegedly witnessed the crime.

The Trial Court convicted the husband under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, but the High Court later acquitted him, prompting the State of Madhya Pradesh to challenge the acquittal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that murders within a household often occur in secrecy, making it challenging for the prosecution to gather direct evidence.

However, it emphasized that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case before invoking Section 106 IEA to shift the burden onto the accused.

SC: No Blanket Rule to Shift Burden on Accused

The Court explained that Section 106 applies only when the prosecution proves facts from which a reasonable inference of guilt can be drawn. If the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation, this can be considered a factor in determining guilt but cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

“If an offence occurs within the four walls of a house, where the accused had ample opportunity to plan and execute the crime, it becomes difficult for the prosecution to establish direct evidence. In such cases, Section 106 IEA serves as a tool to demand an explanation from the accused,” the Bench remarked.

However, the Court stressed that the burden does not automatically shift to the accused without first proving incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

SC Convicts Accused, Overturns High Court’s Acquittal

Considering the circumstances and evidence, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case, warranting the application of Section 106 IEA. It ruled that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused and reinstated the Trial Court’s conviction.

The Court observed:

“When the accused offers no explanation or an explanation that is false, this itself becomes a relevant factor, but only when the prosecution has first discharged its burden.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal order and convicted the accused.

Case Details:

• Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 261
• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra
• Appellant’s Counsel: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Sarthak Raizada, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, and Akanksha Tomar
• Respondent’s Counsel: AOR Anil Shrivastav, Advocates Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, Akhileshwar Jha, Varun Verma, and Sandeep Singh D.