Section 106 BSA: Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 explains who must prove a specific fact before a court can accept it as true.

Introduction

The burden of proof as to a particular fact under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) rests on the person who wants the court to believe that the fact exists, unless another law assigns the burden differently. The provision applies when a party relies on a specific factual assertion to establish a claim, support a defence or obtain a judicial finding.

For example, if the prosecution alleges that an accused person admitted committing theft to a particular witness, the prosecution must prove that the admission occurred. Similarly, if the accused claims to have been somewhere else when the offence took place, the accused must establish the asserted fact of being elsewhere, subject to the applicable rules governing criminal trials and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt.

Section 106 BSA corresponds to Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Its fundamental principle has been retained under the new legislation.

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Bare Act

106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.— The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Illustration. A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

Meaning of Section 106 BSA

Section 106 deals with the burden of proving a particular fact rather than the overall burden of establishing a legal claim. It identifies the person who must produce proof of a specific factual assertion that the court is being asked to accept.

The general principle is straightforward: the person who wants the court to believe a particular fact must ordinarily prove that fact, unless a specific law provides otherwise.

Consider a criminal prosecution in which the prosecution alleges that the accused confessed to a friend. The prosecution must establish that the alleged admission was made. It cannot expect the court to accept the assertion merely because it appears in the prosecution’s case.

Likewise, if the accused relies on the claim that they were at another location at the relevant time, the fact of being elsewhere must be established through appropriate evidence if the accused wishes the court to accept it.

However, Section 106 must not be confused with Section 109 BSA, which addresses facts especially within a person’s knowledge. Section 106 concerns the burden relating to a particular fact, while Section 109 deals with the special situation in which a fact is especially within a person’s knowledge.

Essential Elements of Section 106 BSA

Element	Explanation
Particular fact	The provision concerns a specific factual assertion that a party wants the court to accept.
Person asserting the fact	The person seeking acceptance of the fact ordinarily bears the burden of proving it.
Evidence	The fact must be established through evidence recognised by law.
Statutory exception	Another law may specifically assign the burden of proof to a different person.

The provision does not mean that every disputed fact must always be proved by the person who first mentions it. The court must consider the applicable statutory rules, presumptions and the nature of the issue before deciding where the burden lies.

Illustrations of Section 106 BSA

1. Alleged admission in a theft case

A prosecutes B for theft. A wants the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C.

A must prove that the alleged admission was made. Depending on the circumstances, relevant evidence may include C’s testimony or other admissible evidence establishing the alleged statement.

The court must also consider whether the statement is legally admissible and what evidentiary value it carries. Proving that a statement was made does not automatically establish the accused’s guilt.

2. Plea that the accused was elsewhere

A prosecutes B for an offence allegedly committed at a particular place and time. B wishes the court to believe that B was at another location.

Under the statutory illustration, B must prove the asserted fact of being elsewhere.

This example relates to an alibi, which is a claim that the accused was somewhere else when the offence occurred. The accused may rely on relevant witnesses, travel records, electronic records or other admissible evidence, depending on the facts.

Also Read: Section 104 BSA: Burden of Proof

Importantly, the accused’s burden to establish an alibi does not eliminate the prosecution’s obligation to prove the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Claim that a payment was made

A sues B to recover money allegedly due under an agreement. B asserts that a particular payment was made and seeks to rely on that fact to reduce or discharge the outstanding liability.

B may need to prove the asserted payment through receipts, bank records, acknowledgements or other admissible evidence. The precise allocation of the burden depends on the pleadings, admissions and applicable law.

4. Allegation of a specific agreement

A claims that B agreed to extend a contractual deadline. B disputes that such an agreement was made.

The party relying on the alleged extension must establish the relevant facts in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence and contract law. Whether the agreement was made, whether it was legally effective and whether it can be proved through the evidence offered are separate questions.

These examples demonstrate that Section 106 is concerned with proof of particular facts that a party asks the court to accept.

Difference Between Section 104, Section 105 and Section 106 BSA

Sections 104, 105 and 106 deal with connected but distinct aspects of the burden of proof.

Provision	Subject	Main question
Section 104 BSA	Burden of proof	Who must prove the facts on which a claimed legal right or liability depends?
Section 105 BSA	On whom burden of proof lies	Who would fail if neither side produced any evidence?
Section 106 BSA	Burden of proof as to particular fact	Who must prove a specific fact that they want the court to believe?

For example, in a suit for recovery of money, Section 104 helps identify the party responsible for establishing the claim. Section 105 provides the test for determining which party would fail if neither side produced evidence. Section 106 applies to particular facts that a party seeks to establish during the proceedings.

The provisions must be read together rather than treated as interchangeable rules.

Important Case Laws on Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact

The following Supreme Court decisions interpret the predecessor provision, Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or explain its relationship with the general rules of burden of proof. They are relevant to understanding Section 106 BSA but are not judgments specifically interpreting the newly numbered provision.

1. Parimal v. Veena (2011)

Citation: (2011) 3 SCC 545

In Parimal v. Veena, the Supreme Court discussed the principles governing the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act, including the distinction between the general burden of proof and the burden relating to a particular fact.

The Court explained that the burden of proof ordinarily rests on the party who substantially asserts the relevant facts rather than on the party who merely denies them. Section 103 of the former Evidence Act supplemented the general principle by placing the burden of proving a particular fact on the person who wanted the court to believe that it existed, subject to a different statutory allocation.

The judgment is useful for understanding that a party seeking a judicial finding in its favour must establish the necessary factual basis for that finding.

Relevance to Section 106 BSA: The decision explains the relationship between the general burden of proof and the obligation to establish a specific factual assertion.

2. Chairman, Board of Trustee, Sri Ram Mandir Jagtial v. S. Rajyalaxmi (2018)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Judgment date: 10 December 2018

In this property dispute, the Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiffs had adequately established their claim of ownership. The plaintiffs relied on materials including municipal permissions, property-tax receipts and entries in official records.

The Court observed that municipal permissions and tax receipts might indicate possession but would not, by themselves, confer title to the property. It also held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim of ownership.

Also Read: Section 13 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Facts Bearing on Whether an Act Was Accidental or Intentional

While discussing the principles in Parimal v. Veena, the Court explained that Section 103 of the former Indian Evidence Act placed the burden of proving a particular fact on the person who wanted the court to believe it existed, unless a special law provided otherwise.

Relevance to Section 106 BSA: The decision illustrates why a party claiming a specific legal or factual position must establish it through sufficient evidence. It also demonstrates that evidence supporting one circumstance, such as possession, does not automatically prove another fact, such as ownership.

Relationship Between Section 106 and Section 109 BSA

Section 106 and Section 109 are both concerned with the burden of proof, but their focus differs.

Basis	Section 106 BSA	Section 109 BSA
Subject	Burden of proof as to a particular fact	Burden of proving a fact especially within a person’s knowledge
General principle	The person seeking acceptance of a particular fact ordinarily must prove it	A person bears the burden of proving a fact especially within that person’s knowledge
Application	Applies broadly to particular factual assertions	Applies to facts having the special knowledge characteristic described in the provision
Example	Proving that an alleged admission was made	Establishing a fact uniquely or especially known to a particular person, where the provision applies

Section 109 does not automatically transfer the entire burden of a criminal case to the accused. The prosecution must still prove the essential ingredients of the offence. The special-knowledge rule must be applied consistently with the broader framework of criminal evidence law.

Does Section 106 BSA Apply to Criminal Cases?

Yes. The statutory illustration itself concerns a criminal prosecution for theft.

The prosecution must prove a particular fact when it asks the court to accept that fact as part of its case. For instance, if the prosecution relies on an alleged admission by the accused, it must establish that the admission was made and satisfy the applicable rules concerning its admissibility.

Where an accused relies on an alibi, the accused must establish the factual basis for that plea in accordance with the applicable law. Nevertheless, the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution in an ordinary criminal trial, subject to applicable statutory provisions and presumptions.

Section 106 therefore operates alongside the general rules governing criminal trials; it does not create a universal reverse burden against the accused.

Difference Between Section 106 BSA and Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 106 BSA corresponds to Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Basis	Section 106 BSA	Section 103 Indian Evidence Act
Legislation	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023	Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Subject	Burden of proof as to particular fact	Burden of proof as to any particular fact
General rule	The person seeking acceptance of a particular fact ordinarily must prove it	Substantially the same rule
Current relevance	Governs matters under the BSA, subject to transitional provisions	Remains relevant to proceedings governed by the former Act under applicable transitional rules

The essential principle has been retained, with the provision renumbered under the BSA. The former Section 103 should not be confused with Section 103 BSA, which concerns the saving of provisions of the Indian Succession Act relating to wills.

Key Takeaways for Law Students

• Section 106 BSA governs the burden of proof as to a particular fact.
• It corresponds to Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The person who wants the court to believe a particular fact must ordinarily prove it, unless another law provides otherwise.
• The prosecution must establish an alleged admission on which it relies.
• An accused relying on an alibi must establish the factual basis for the claim, without displacing the prosecution’s general burden of proving guilt.
• Section 106 must be distinguished from Section 109 BSA, which concerns facts especially within a person’s knowledge.
• Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, is a useful Supreme Court authority on the general burden of proof and the burden relating to particular facts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 106 BSA provides that the burden of proving a particular fact ordinarily lies on the person who wants the court to believe that the fact exists, unless another law assigns the burden differently.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 106 BSA?

Section 106 BSA corresponds to Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Who must prove a particular fact under Section 106 BSA?

Ordinarily, the person who wants the court to accept that fact must prove it, subject to applicable statutory provisions and exceptions.

4. What is an example of Section 106 BSA?

If the prosecution alleges that an accused admitted committing theft to a witness, the prosecution must prove that the admission was made. This is the illustration provided in Section 106 BSA.

5. Is Section 106 BSA the same as Section 109 BSA?

No. Section 106 concerns the burden of proof relating to a particular fact. Section 109 concerns facts especially within a person’s knowledge.

6. Which case law is relevant to Section 106 BSA?

Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, is a useful Supreme Court authority discussing the burden of proof under the predecessor Evidence Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in Chairman, Board of Trustee, Sri Ram Mandir Jagtial v. S. Rajyalaxmi, delivered on 10 December 2018, also discusses the principle governing proof of a particular fact.

Conclusion

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes the general rule that a person who wants the court to accept a particular fact must ordinarily prove it. The provision is important in both civil and criminal proceedings because it ensures that specific factual assertions are supported by evidence rather than accepted merely because they have been made.

Read alongside Sections 104, 105 and 109 BSA, it helps explain how the law allocates responsibility for proving facts. Understanding the distinction between the general burden of proof, the burden relating to a particular fact and facts especially within a person’s knowledge is essential for applying the law of evidence correctly.

dfsad