Burden of proof as to particular fact
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 106, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 103 Burden of proof as to particular fact Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 103, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass violence and mob culpability, conviction of an abettor (non-principal assailant) for murder under Section 302/109 IPC can be sustained based on ocular evidence of exhortation if: (1) At least 2-3 or a clear majority of credible witnesses consistently depose about the exhortation to the actual shooter (Masalti test); (2) The evidence of exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable, not merely suspicion or tendency to implicate; (3) The medical and ocular evidence is not materially contradictory; (4) The abettor does not discharge the burden of establishing alibi or contrary narrative through defense evidence; and (5) Even if an unlawful assembly with common object of murder is not established, individual liability for abetment through direct exhortation can still be sustained. Furthermore, an ante-dated and ante-timed FIR does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if the core facts are corroborated by immediate wireless information sent from the scene; however, death sentence is not appropriate for abetment in mass violence cases where the abettor is not the principal assailant.
On this section: Burden of proof on person wishing court to believe in fact's existence unless law otherwise provides; applied to require Anand Mohan to prove alibi
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 103, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence from multiple independent witnesses consistently establishes that an accused person exhorted another person to commit murder, and the exhortation is sufficient to instigate the act of murder, the accused can be held guilty of abetment of murder under Section 302/109 IPC even if the accused did not personally commit the act of murder. The test for conviction in such cases involving multiple offenders is that if the testimony is supported by 2-3 or more witnesses giving consistent account of the incident (Masalti test), conviction can be sustained. Medical evidence regarding bullet trajectory will not contradict trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence conclusively rules out the possibility of the circumstances described by eyewitnesses. In cases where FIR is suspected to be ante-dated and ante-timed, the court must carefully analyze the evidence supporting the prosecution case rather than discarding the entire prosecution version.
On this section: Burden of proof - Once prosecution proves Anand Mohan was at spot, burden shifts to him to prove he was elsewhere
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Since the defendant has taken a plea that the goods supplied under the first three invoices were defective and of sub standard quality, by virtue of Section 106 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the entire onus to prove the said averments lies on the defendant. - 23. Section 106 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that provides that 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 lies on any particular person. - 24. In this regard, I may note that the …
Questions about Section 106
What have the courts held on Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan (10 Jul 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 103, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Burden of proof on person wishing court to believe in fact's existence unless law otherwise provides; applied to require Anand Mohan to prove alibi. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 106, section 106 BSA, section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan (10 Jul 2012).
What should I read with Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 103 (Burden of proof as to particular fact), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 106, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.