In this
connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact
is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.
In several recent decisions, the
Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlies
Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in such cases. In
the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144 the Supreme
Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation
on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to
discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the
accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the
burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not
shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon
the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does
not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his
knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis
compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure
to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes
the chain.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2010
Sanjay Ramesh Ghodake Vs state of Maharashtra
CORAM
: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SHRI. P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ
Dated: FEBRUARY 12, 2014.
Citation; 2014 ALLMR(cri) 2843
