Question: Burden of Proof Question | A who is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket says that he had a ticket. On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case? [HR.J.S. 1995, W.B.J.S.1975, Bihar J.S. 1978] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Burden of Proof Question | [A… Read More »

Question: Burden of Proof Question | A who is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket says that he had a ticket. On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case? [HR.J.S. 1995, W.B.J.S.1975, Bihar J.S. 1978] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Burden of Proof Question | [A who is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket says that he had a ticket. On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case?] Answer Section 106 of the Indian Evidence...

Question: Burden of Proof Question | A who is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket says that he had a ticket. On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case? [HR.J.S. 1995, W.B.J.S.1975, Bihar J.S. 1978]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Burden of Proof Question | [A who is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket says that he had a ticket. On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case?]

Answer

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about the Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge of the person. It states: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from Illustration (b) appended to section 106. In this case, A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him by virtue of section 106 of the act as the fact that he was travelling was a railway ticket is especially within the knowledge of A only.

Section 106 lays down that where the subject matter of the allegation lies peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties, that party must prove it, whether it may be of an affirmative or negative character. The true object to be achieved by a Court of Justice can only be furthered with property by the testimony of the party who personally knowing the whole circumstances of the case can dispel the suspense attached to it. This section applies only to parties to a suit.

The ingredients of an offence have to be proved by the prosecution. Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case.

In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, [AIR 2001 SC 1436] where a person was abducted and murdered, it was held that if an accused wants to prove that he was not associated with the murder of the abducted person, it is in his special knowledge what he did at the time of the murder and if the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such factor failed to offer any explanation from which the Court may draw a different inference.

The Court will presume that all the abductors were involved in the murder of the victim but it should also be remembered that the explanation given by an accused does not relieve the prosecution of burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable ground.

One of the landmark cases in relation to Illustration (b) is the case of Shambhu Nath Misra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404. In this case, the accused was prosecuted for obtaining a certain sum from the Government as the travelling allowance without travelling.

The prosecution was launched after two and a half years after the alleged offence was said to have occurred. A booking clerk as a prosecution witness proved that no second class ticket was issued for relevant dates for relevant places, but he also stated the tickets were not always issued and the passengers could pay the fares on trains and also could sometimes purchase the ticket for lower class and pay the difference to the guard of the train.

There was no proof that one or the other of these courses was not followed on the relevant dates by the accused, although the prosecution had registers and books both of Railway and of the department in which the accused worked and they could have proved it. Instead of doing it, they proved that no second class tickets were issued and contended that the burden of proving that the accused did pay the 2nd class fares was on him.

It was held that the relevant material and information were as much in the knowledge of the prosecution as in that of the accused and the prosecution could not rely on Illustration (b) to Section 106.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-10-07T18:31:43+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story