Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
Supreme Court of India, 12 March 1956, 2 judges, 1956 AIR 404; 1956 SCR 199
Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof; it applies only to facts especially within the accused's knowledge, not facts the prosecution could prove with due diligence. The appellant's acquittal was restored.
Facts
The appellant, a Camp Clerk at Ajmer, was convicted under Section 420 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for drawing Rs. 23-12-0 as travelling allowance, the second class railway fare for two journeys, allegedly without paying that fare. The Sessions Judge acquitted him on appeal, but the Judicial Commissioner allowed the State's appeal and remanded the case for retrial before a Special Judge. The only proof was that no second class tickets were issued at Ajmer on the relevant dates. The booking clerk admitted that fares could also be paid on the train or the difference paid to the guard. The State relied on Illustration (b) to Section 106 to say that the appellant had to prove he paid the fares.
Questions before the Court
- Does Section 106 of the Evidence Act, read with Illustration (b), place on the accused the burden of proving that he paid the second class fares?
- Did the evidence led justify a retrial of the appellant?
What the Court held
- Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Section 106 is not meant to relieve it of that duty.
- The word 'especially' means facts pre-eminently or exceptionally within the accused's knowledge. Where knowledge of the facts is as much available to the prosecution, if it uses due diligence, as to the accused, the facts are not especially within the accused's knowledge.
- An illustration does not exhaust the content of a section, but it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit. Illustration (b) refers to offences of travelling without a ticket under the Indian Railways Act and did not apply here.
- The railway and departmental records could have shown whether the fares were paid, so the burden did not shift. No conviction could rest on the evidence; the Judicial Commissioner's order was set aside and the acquittal restored.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the general burden of proof in criminal cases. It applies only in exceptional cases where it would be impossible or disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to prove facts especially within the accused's knowledge, and the Court gave the murder example to show why a wider reading cannot be right.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.”
“We recognise that an illustration does not exhaust the full content of the section which it illustrates but equally it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit; and if knowledge of certain facts is as much available to the prosecution, should it choose to exercise due diligence, as to the accused, the facts cannot be said to be "especially" within the knowledge of the accused.”
“The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 106 and Illustration (b), Evidence ActNow: BSA 109 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 101, Evidence ActNow: BSA 104 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Sections 112 and 113, Indian Railways Act
Case and bench
- Parties
- Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1954
- Decided
- 12 March 1956
- Bench
- Bose, Vivian, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Bose, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.