Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” Since 1 July 2024 the same rule, in the same words and with the same two illustrations, is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced the Evidence Act. The official Hindi text of Section 109 reads: “जब कोई तथ्य विशेषत: किसी व्यक्ति को ज्ञात है, तब उस तथ्य को साबित करने का भार उस पर है।”
In simple words, dhara 106 ka matlab hai: a fact that one person especially knows, and others cannot easily find out, must be proved by that person. It does not make an accused prove his innocence. Since 1956 the Supreme Court has held that the prosecution must still prove its case; Section 106 comes in only after the prosecution has proved the basic facts, for example that a wife was killed inside the home she shared with her husband.
Section 106 Evidence Act (Section 109 BSA) at a glance
- What it says: when a fact is especially within a person’s knowledge, the burden of proving it is on him.
- New number: Section 109 BSA from 1 July 2024, same words; the old Section 106 still governs proceedings pending on that date (Section 170(2) BSA).
- Official Hindi heading: “विशेषत: ज्ञात तथ्य को साबित करने का भार”.
- General rule first: whoever asserts facts must prove them, Section 104 BSA (formerly Section 101); in a criminal case, the prosecution.
- Criminal cases: Section 106 “is certainly not intended to relieve” the prosecution of that duty (Shambhu Nath Mehra, 1956) and cannot make up for missing evidence (Anees, 2024).
- When it matters: once the prosecution proves facts such as death inside the home or “last seen together”, the accused’s silence or false explanation can count against him (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, 2006).
- Other “Section 106″s: Section 106 BSA (burden as to a particular fact, formerly Section 103), Section 106 BNS (death by negligence, formerly Section 304A IPC), Section 106 BNSS (police seizure) and Section 106 IPC (private defence, now Section 44 BNS).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are quoted from their English texts on India Code (as on 6 October 2025), the BSA and the BNS also from their official Hindi texts on India Code, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from its India Code text (a repealed Act, with no “as on” date printed).
The text: Section 106 Evidence Act and Section 109 BSA
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as published on India Code, reads:
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.––When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023) reads:
“109. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations.
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
The two texts are identical; the firm’s comparison data records “No change”. The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024 (notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024, as noted on India Code) and repealed the Evidence Act (Section 170(1)). Under Section 170(2), any “application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal” pending immediately before that date “shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. A trial pending on 1 July 2024 therefore still cites Section 106; later ones cite Section 109 BSA, and the Supreme Court’s judgments on Section 106 guide both. The firm’s IEA to BSA comparison tool gives the new number of any section.
Section 109 BSA in Hindi: the official text (धारा 109, भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023)
The official Hindi text, भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 (2023 का अधिनियम संख्यांक 47), published in the Gazette of India and available on India Code, places the section in “अध्याय 7 – सबूत के भार के विषय में” (Chapter VII, Of the burden of proof). Its marginal heading is “विशेषत: ज्ञात तथ्य को साबित करने का भार” and it reads:
“109. जब कोई तथ्य विशेषत: किसी व्यक्ति को ज्ञात है, तब उस तथ्य को साबित करने का भार उस पर है ।
दृष्टांत
(क) जब कोई व्यक्ति किसी कार्य को उस आशय से भिन्न किसी आशय से करता है, जिसे उस कार्य का स्वरूप और परिस्थितियां इंगित करती हैं, तब उस आशय को साबित करने का भार उस पर है ।
(ख) ख पर रेल से बिना टिकट यात्रा करने का आरोप है । यह साबित करने का भार कि उसके पास टिकट था उस पर है ।”
What Section 106 means, in plain words
Section 106 answers one narrow question: who must prove a fact that one person knows far better than anyone else? That person. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) the Supreme Court said the stress is on the word “especially”, which “means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge”. A fact the other side could find out with due diligence is not “especially” within one person’s knowledge.
Illustration (a) is about intention: if a person says his real intention differed from what the act and its circumstances suggest, only he knows that. In Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (2024) the Supreme Court said that “if the prosecution has established that the character and circumstance of an act suggest that it was done with a particular intention, then under illustration (a) to this section, it may be assumed that he had that intention, unless he proves the contrary.”
Illustration (b) is the railway ticket: the railway cannot know where a passenger boarded, but he can simply show his ticket. Still, an illustration “must be read subject to the section itself and cannot travel beyond it” (Shambhu Nath Mehra). There the prosecution proved that no second-class tickets were issued at Ajmer on the relevant dates and then relied on illustration (b) to make the accused prove he paid the fare. The Court refused: the railway’s own registers could show whether the fare was paid on the train, so the fact was not “especially” within his knowledge.
Where Section 109 fits among the burden-of-proof rules (Sections 104 to 108 BSA)
Chapter VII of the BSA, “Of the Burden of Proof”, starts with Section 104 (formerly Section 101): “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist”. Its illustration (a): “A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.” Shambhu Nath Mehra called Section 106 “an exception to section 101”, and Anees (2024) repeated that the rule that the prosecution must prove guilt “is not in any way modified” by Section 106.
| BSA section (old Evidence Act section) | Heading | On whom the burden lies |
|---|---|---|
| 104 (101) | Burden of proof | Whoever asks for judgment on facts he asserts |
| 105 (102) | On whom burden of proof lies | The person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side |
| 106 (103) | Burden of proof as to particular fact | The person who wants the court to believe that fact, unless a law says otherwise (an accused who says he was elsewhere must prove it) |
| 107 (104) | Fact to be proved to make evidence admissible | The person who wants to give that evidence |
| 108 (105) | Case of accused within exceptions | The accused, for General Exceptions or special exceptions; the court presumes their absence |
| 109 (106) | Fact especially within knowledge | The person who especially knows the fact |
| 113 (110) | Burden of proof as to ownership | The person who says that someone shown to be in possession is not the owner |
The firm’s comparison data records “No change” for Sections 104 to 107 and 109; Section 108 now refers to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 instead of the Indian Penal Code. Section 108 truly puts the burden on the accused for one class of facts, such as a plea of unsoundness of mind. Section 109 is narrower and never replaces the prosecution’s duty to prove the offence. The idea behind Section 104 is explained in the firm’s post on actori incumbit probatio (burden of proof).
How the Supreme Court applies Section 106 in criminal cases
Four judgments, read in the Supreme Court’s official copies, show the rule and its limits; all apply equally to Section 109 BSA.
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (12 March 1956): the basic rule
Bose J. said for the Court: “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.” Any wider reading would make the accused in every murder case prove that he did not commit it. The section “must be considered in a commonsense way” and “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.” The accused clerk’s acquittal was restored.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (11 October 2006): death inside the house
A young wife was found dead in her matrimonial home. The husband and his parents said she died of snake bite, but the medical evidence showed strangulation, and in his statement under Section 313 CrPC the husband did not explain her injuries. Upholding his murder conviction, the Supreme Court held:
“Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.”
Where the prosecution shows that “shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together”, or that the offence happened in the home where the husband also normally lived, and he “does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” In trials begun after 1 July 2024 the court questions the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly Section 313 CrPC; trials pending on that date continue under the CrPC, Section 531 BNSS) so that he can explain “any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him”.
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (3 May 2024): the principles restated
In this Delhi case a husband killed his wife inside their home in the early morning. A three-judge Bench (Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ.) restated the law:
- “the court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases.”
- “Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.”
- “So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.”
- “If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But, if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him.”
It also quoted Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021): “When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” Here the foundational facts were proved: the crime happened inside the house where he lived with his wife and young daughter, his story of two unknown intruders was false, his clothes carried the deceased’s blood group, and he led the police to the knife. The conviction was upheld. Speaking of offences “inside the four walls of a house”, the Court said: “It is to resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act exists in the statute book.”
Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh (25 July 2024): no proof, no Section 106
A husband was convicted of strangling his wife, found dead at home around 5 p.m. The witnesses turned hostile, and one said he came home only at 7 p.m. The Supreme Court acquitted him: “For invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution ought to have discharged the burden on it by adducing cogent evidence to prove the appellant’s presence at the relevant time in his house.” As there was “no evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together”, “Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden on the appellant.” In “last seen” cases, therefore, that fact must itself be proved first.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sections 104 and 109 BSA and Section 351 BNSS (India Code) and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Shambhu Nath Mehra (1956), Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (2006), Anees and Manharan Rajwade (2024).
What Section 106 does not do
In short, Section 106 does not make an accused prove his innocence, does not cover facts the prosecution could find with due diligence (such as official records), and does not fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
It is also not a rule about who owns property in someone’s possession. Where a person is shown to be in possession of something, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is “on the person who affirms that he is not the owner” (Section 113 BSA, formerly Section 110). Statutory presumptions, such as the presumption as to dowry death in Section 118 BSA (formerly Section 113B; see the firm’s post on Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act), are separate rules.
Other laws’ Section 106: if you searched “dhara 106” for a different Act
Many searches for “dhara 106” or “106 IPC” are about a different law. None of these has anything to do with the burden of proof.
| “Section 106” of | Subject | Old or new equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Causing death by negligence | 106(1) replaces Section 304A IPC; 106(2) is new |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) | Power of police officer to seize certain property | Formerly Section 102 CrPC |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 (repealed) | Private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to an innocent person | Now Section 44 BNS |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | Burden of proof as to particular fact | Formerly Section 103 of the Evidence Act |
| Constitution of India (Article 106) | Salaries and allowances of members of Parliament | An Article, not a section |
Section 106 BNS: causing death by negligence (formerly Section 304A IPC)
Section 106(1) BNS reads: “Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 304A IPC allowed up to two years, or fine, or both. Under the BNSS First Schedule, Section 106(1) is cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
Section 106(2) covers death by “rash and negligent driving of vehicle” where the driver “escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident”: up to ten years and fine. The BNSS First Schedule lists it as cognizable and non-bailable, but that entry was also kept out of force (notification S.O. 848(E) dated 23 February 2024, as noted on India Code). The BNS itself came into force on 1 July 2024 “except the provision of sub-section (2) of section 106” (notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024, as noted on India Code), and India Code’s BNS text (as on 6 October 2025) records no later notification bringing it into force. In the official Hindi text, Section 106 BNS is headed “उपेक्षा द्वारा मृत्यु कारित करना”. Compensation after a road accident is a separate civil claim; see the firm’s guide to Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.
Section 106 BNSS, Section 106 IPC and Article 106
Section 106 BNSS lets “Any police officer” seize property “alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence”, and the seizure must be reported “forthwith” to the Magistrate. Section 106 IPC, now Section 44 BNS with the same words, extends the right of private defence against an assault that “reasonably causes the apprehension of death” to the running of a risk of harm to an innocent person. Article 106 of the Constitution provides that members of either House of Parliament “shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament by law”.
धारा 106 साक्ष्य अधिनियम (अब धारा 109 बीएसए) – हिंदी में सारांश (Summary in Hindi)
धारा 106 क्या है? भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 106 का नियम 1 जुलाई 2024 से भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 (2023 का अधिनियम संख्यांक 47) की धारा 109 में है, और शब्द वही हैं। आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में धारा 109 का शीर्षक “विशेषत: ज्ञात तथ्य को साबित करने का भार” है और धारा कहती है: “जब कोई तथ्य विशेषत: किसी व्यक्ति को ज्ञात है, तब उस तथ्य को साबित करने का भार उस पर है।” इसके दो दृष्टांत हैं: (क) किसी कार्य के पीछे का भिन्न आशय (इरादा) वही व्यक्ति साबित करेगा; और (ख) “ख पर रेल से बिना टिकट यात्रा करने का आरोप है। यह साबित करने का भार कि उसके पास टिकट था उस पर है।”
आगे का भाग फर्म का सरल सारांश है। धारा 106 का मतलब: जो बात मुख्य रूप से किसी एक व्यक्ति को ही पता है, और दूसरा पक्ष सामान्य प्रयास से उसे पता नहीं कर सकता, उसे साबित करना उसी व्यक्ति का काम है। यह सामान्य नियम का अपवाद है। सामान्य नियम धारा 104 (पहले धारा 101) में है; उसके आधिकारिक हिंदी दृष्टांत (क) के अनुसार “क को यह साबित करना होगा कि ख ने वह अपराध किया है।” यानी आपराधिक मामले में अपराध साबित करने का भार अभियोजन पर ही रहता है।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 1956 में शम्भू नाथ मेहरा बनाम अजमेर राज्य के मामले में कहा कि धारा 106 अभियोजन को इस कर्तव्य से मुक्त नहीं करती। यह केवल उन विशेष मामलों के लिए है जहां कोई तथ्य साबित करना अभियोजन के लिए असंभव या बहुत कठिन हो और अभियुक्त उसे आसानी से साबित कर सकता हो। अगर इसे चौड़े अर्थ में पढ़ा जाए तो हत्या के हर मामले में अभियुक्त को ही साबित करना पड़ेगा कि उसने हत्या नहीं की, जो कानून का इरादा नहीं हो सकता। जो तथ्य सरकारी या रेलवे रिकॉर्ड से पता चल सकता है, वह “विशेषत:” अभियुक्त की जानकारी में नहीं माना जाता।
घर के अंदर हुई मौत: 2006 के त्रिमुख मारोती किरकन बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य के फैसले में कोर्ट ने कहा कि घर के अंदर छिपकर हुई हत्या में शुरुआती भार अभियोजन पर ही रहता है, पर सबूत का स्तर अपेक्षाकृत हल्का होता है, और धारा 106 के कारण घर में रहने वालों पर यह बताने का भार आता है कि घटना कैसे हुई; वे केवल चुप रहकर नहीं बच सकते। अगर पति-पत्नी घटना से कुछ पहले साथ देखे गए थे, या घटना उस घर में हुई जहां पति भी सामान्यतः रहता था, और पति कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहीं देता या झूठा स्पष्टीकरण देता है, तो यह उसके विरुद्ध एक मजबूत परिस्थिति है।
2024 में अनीस बनाम राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली सरकार के मामले में तीन जजों की पीठ ने कहा कि धारा 106 का प्रयोग आपराधिक मामलों में सावधानी से होना चाहिए; यह अभियोजन के सबूतों की कमी को पूरा नहीं कर सकती; और जब तक प्रथम दृष्टया मामला साबित न हो, भार अभियुक्त पर नहीं जाता। अगर अभियुक्त ऐसा स्पष्टीकरण देता है जो परिस्थितियों में उचित रूप से सच हो सकता है, तो उसे संदेह का लाभ मिलता है; पर कोई स्पष्टीकरण न देना या झूठा स्पष्टीकरण देना उसके विरुद्ध जा सकता है। जुलाई 2024 के मनहरण राजवाड़े बनाम छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य के फैसले में “आखिरी बार साथ देखे जाने” का तथ्य ही साबित नहीं हुआ था, इसलिए कोर्ट ने कहा कि धारा 106 से भार पति पर नहीं डाला जा सकता और उसे बरी कर दिया।
पुराना या नया कानून: 1 जुलाई 2024 से पहले से लंबित कार्यवाहियों में पुराना साक्ष्य अधिनियम (धारा 106) लागू रहेगा (धारा 170(2)); बाकी में धारा 109। नए अधिनियम की अपनी धारा 106 अलग है; उसका आधिकारिक हिंदी शीर्षक “विशिष्ट तथ्य के बारे में सबूत का भार” है (पहले धारा 103)।
दूसरी “धारा 106”: भारतीय न्याय संहिता, 2023 की धारा 106 का आधिकारिक हिंदी शीर्षक “उपेक्षा द्वारा मृत्यु कारित करना” है; यह पुरानी आईपीसी धारा 304A की जगह है। उपधारा (1) में पांच वर्ष तक का कारावास और जुर्माना है (रजिस्ट्रीकृत चिकित्सा व्यवसायी के लिए दो वर्ष तक)। उपधारा (2), यानी वाहन से मृत्यु कारित कर पुलिस या मजिस्ट्रेट को बताए बिना भाग जाना, 1 जुलाई 2024 को लागू नहीं की गई थी, और इंडिया कोड के पाठ (6 अक्टूबर 2025 तक) में बाद की कोई अधिसूचना दर्ज नहीं है। पुरानी आईपीसी की धारा 106 निजी प्रतिरक्षा के अधिकार के बारे में थी (अब बीएनएस धारा 44), और बीएनएसएस की धारा 106 पुलिस द्वारा संपत्ति जब्त करने की शक्ति के बारे में है (पहले सीआरपीसी धारा 102)।
Frequently asked questions
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” Since 1 July 2024 it is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with the same words and illustrations. It is a narrow exception to the general rule in Section 101 (now Section 104 BSA) that whoever asserts a fact must prove it.
The official Hindi text of Section 109 of the भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023 reads: “जब कोई तथ्य विशेषत: किसी व्यक्ति को ज्ञात है, तब उस तथ्य को साबित करने का भार उस पर है।” Its heading is “विशेषत: ज्ञात तथ्य को साबित करने का भार”. In simple words, a fact that one person especially knows must be proved by that person, but the prosecution must still prove the offence.
It is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024; the firm’s comparison data records “No change”. Section 106 of the BSA itself is a different rule, the old Section 103 (“Burden of proof as to particular fact”).
Not the burden of proving the offence. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) the Supreme Court said the burden in a criminal case is on the prosecution “and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty”. In Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (2024) it added that “until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused”.
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) the Supreme Court held that the initial burden stays on the prosecution, but “there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed”. If the husband gives no explanation or a false one, that is “a strong circumstance” against him. Anees (2024) applied the same approach to a murder inside a home in Delhi.
If the prosecution proves that the deceased was last seen with the accused, what happened afterwards may be especially within his knowledge, and his silence or false explanation can be an additional circumstance. But the “last seen” fact must be proved first. In Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) there was “no evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together”, so Section 106 “cannot be invoked to shift the burden”, and the husband was acquitted.
No. In Anees (2024) the Supreme Court said that if the accused “offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation”. No explanation, or a false one, may “turn the scale against him”, but only where the prosecution’s other circumstances are already proved.
The section is not limited to criminal cases. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam “applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court” (Section 1(2)), except affidavits and proceedings before an arbitrator, and Section 109 speaks of “any person”. The general civil rules sit beside it, for example that the burden lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given (Section 105 BSA).
Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with the right of private defence against a deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person: the defender’s right “extends to the running of that risk”. It is now Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, unchanged. Death by negligence, also often searched as “106”, was Section 304A IPC and is now Section 106 BNS.
Section 106(1) BNS punishes causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide with up to five years and fine (up to two years for a registered medical practitioner during a medical procedure). Section 106(2), on a driver who escapes without reporting, provides up to ten years, but the BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 “except the provision of sub-section (2) of section 106”, and India Code’s text (as on 6 October 2025) shows no later notification.
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 102 CrPC) empowers any police officer to seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of an offence, and requires the seizure to be reported forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
Under Section 170(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so Section 106 is cited there; other proceedings cite Section 109 BSA. Because the wording is the same, the same Supreme Court judgments apply to both.
Conclusion
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, now Section 109 BSA in the same words, puts the burden of proving a fact on the person who especially knows it. In a criminal trial it is a narrow exception to Section 104 BSA: the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts, and only then can the accused’s silence or false explanation about matters within his special knowledge count against him. From Shambhu Nath Mehra (1956) to Anees and Manharan Rajwade (2024), the Supreme Court has used it where the facts lie hidden inside a home or with the last person seen with the deceased, but never to make an accused prove his innocence.
Sources used for this post: the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872, repealed by Act 47 of 2023), Sections 101 to 106 and 110, from its India Code text (A1872-1.pdf; no “as on” date printed); the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023), Sections 1, 104 to 109, 113, 118 and 170 and the commencement note (notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024), from its India Code text (a2023-47.pdf, as on 6 October 2025), and its official Hindi text on India Code (hh202347.pdf, Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II Section 1A, pages 515 to 517, read from the page images); the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 44 and 106 and the commencement note (notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024), from its India Code text (a2023-45.pdf, as on 6 October 2025) and its official Hindi text (Hh202345.pdf, Gazette page 56); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 106, 351 and 531, the First Schedule entries for Section 106 BNS and the commencement note (notification S.O. 848(E) dated 23 February 2024), from its India Code text (as on 6 October 2025); the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 106 and 304A, from its India Code text; the Constitution of India, Article 106 (Legislative Department edition, as on 10 September 2026); the firm’s section-by-section comparison data checked against the Gazette texts; and these Supreme Court judgments, read in the Court’s official copies: Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1954, decided 12 March 1956, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/754.pdf; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1341 of 2005, decided 11 October 2006, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/28109.pdf; Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015, 2024 INSC 368, decided 3 May 2024, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/22998/22998_2014_1_1501_52839_Judgement_03-May-2024.pdf; and Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2019, 2024 INSC 560, decided 25 July 2024, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/37185/37185_2017_6_108_54143_Judgement_25-Jul-2024.pdf. Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021) is referred to only as quoted in Anees.
