Section 105: Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions

Now in the BSA

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and life sentence: the jury verdict was vitiated by grave misdirections, and the killing, done after time to cool, did not fall within the grave and sudden provocation exception.

Questions on this section

6 questions in 24 of our papers cite Section 105. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He claims that he caused it on grave and sudden provocation, which would bring the case under Section 122(2) of that Sanhita. Under Section 108 of the BSA:

   A.the burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under Section 122(2) lies on AB.no burden lies on A, as Section 108 applies only to the General Exceptions in the SanhitaC.the Court shall presume the provocation once A asserts it in his statement as an accusedD.the prosecution must disprove the provocation beyond reasonable doubt before A is asked to lead evidence
   Show answer

2. 2. Under Section 108 of the BSA, when a person accused of an offence claims the benefit of a General Exception in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Court:

   A.shall treat the exception as proved once the accused raises it in his own statementB.shall presume those circumstances unless the prosecution disproves them beyond doubtC.may presume the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exceptionD.shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception
   Show answer

3. 3. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat (1964), dealing with a plea of insanity and the burden under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 108 of the BSA), the Supreme Court held that the accused:

   A.may discharge the burden by a preponderance of probabilities, as in civil proceedingsB.discharges the burden only by producing a medical certificate issued before the offenceC.bears no burden at all, as the prosecution must prove soundness of mind in every caseD.must prove insanity beyond reasonable doubt, as the law presumes every accused to be sane
   Show answer