Section 106: Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge

Overview

Section 106 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with a fundamental rule of fairness in court proceedings. It states that if a particular fact is something a person *should* know – because it’s directly related to their actions or responsibilities – then it’s their job to prove that fact, not the other way around. Essentially, it places the responsibility on the person with the best access to information.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section applies to all types of evidence – oral testimony (what people say in court), documentary evidence (written documents like letters or contracts), and electronic records (emails, messages, etc.). It doesn’t create a specific type of evidence but affects *who* needs to present it.
• Conditions for Relevancy & Admissibility: The fact in question must be ‘especially within the knowledge’ of the person. This means they have a natural ability or duty to know it. Relevancy is established if the fact is connected to the case, and admissibility depends on whether it meets other legal requirements (like not being hearsay, unless an exception applies).
• Burden of Proof Implications: Normally, the person making a claim (the plaintiff in a civil case, or the prosecution in a criminal case) has the burden of proving their claim. Section 106 *shifts* this burden to the person who possesses the specific knowledge. They must actively prove the fact, or the court may assume it to be true against them.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 106 when a party claims they don’t know something that they reasonably *should* know. The court won’t simply accept their denial. Instead, it will require them to present evidence demonstrating they genuinely lacked the knowledge. This often involves questioning the person closely and examining any available records. The court assesses whether the person had the opportunity and duty to know the fact.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation: A shopkeeper is accused of selling an expired product. The shopkeeper claims they didn’t know the product was expired. Section 106 applies. The burden is on the shopkeeper to prove they took reasonable steps to check the expiry date – perhaps by showing records of stock rotation or employee training.
• Example 2 – More Complex: A company is sued for breach of contract. They claim they never received the contract documents. If the documents were sent to the company’s registered address, and the company’s records show someone *should* have received and logged them, Section 106 applies. The company must prove they have a system for handling incoming mail and that, despite that system, the documents were not received.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, does not include any specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 106. The application of the section relies on the interpretation of “especially within the knowledge” based on the facts of each case.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

Section 106 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely mirrors Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in the underlying principle. The new Bill aims for clearer language and structure, but the core concept remains the same.

Key Takeaways

• If a fact is within someone’s knowledge, they must prove it.
• This shifts the burden of proof from the claimant to the person with the knowledge.
• Applies to all types of evidence.
• Courts will scrutinize claims of ignorance if knowledge is reasonably expected.