Section 106 constitutes an exception to Section 101 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, (1956) 1 SCR 199 has stood the test of time. Thus, Section 106 will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain other facts which are within special knowledge of accused. When accused fails to offer proper explanation about existence of said other facts, Court can always draw an appropriate inference. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106, such a failure may provide an additional link to chain of circumstances.

In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if chain of circumstances which is required to be established by prosecution is not established, failure of accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 is not relevant at all.

The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 is a leading decision of this Court on the subject. The facts established do not rule out existence of any other hypothesis. The facts established cannot be said to be consistent only with one hypothesis of guilt of Nagendra.  

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, [Criminal Appeal No. 1903 of 2019].

_____

The wheels of justice may grind slow, but they grind fine. As noted in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, (1984) 4 SCC 116 distinction between “may have” and “must have” is a legal distinction and not merely a grammatical one.

– Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011] decided on 12.02.2024.

_____

Cases are frequently coming before Courts where a Husband, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards character, has gone to extent of killing his Wife. If an offence takes place inside four walls of a house, it will be extremely difficult for to lead direct evidence to establish guilt. It is to resolve such a situation, Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 exists.

Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 considered the word ‘especially’ employed in Section 106, speaking through Vivian Bose J, and has been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Anees v. State Govt. of NCT, [Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015] decided on 03.04.2024.