Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Cannot Shift Burden To Accused Unless Prosecution Establishes A Prima Facie Case: Allahabad High Court

"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. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence." Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated 9 October 2026, held that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to an accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the prosecution has first succeeded in establishing a prima facie case through cogent and reliable evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice Manoj Bajaj and Justice Harvir Singh observed that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its fundamental duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence.

The appellant, Smt. Madhu, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of her three minor children under Section 302 and Section 328 of the IPC, receiving a life sentence. The prosecution alleged that the mother, having separated from her husband five years prior, poisoned her children because they were perceived as obstacles to her potential remarriage. The defense challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, lacked scientific corroboration for the alleged poisoning, and failed to account for the presence of other family members residing in the same household.

The primary question before the Court was whether the prosecution had discharged its initial burden of proof to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court was further called upon to determine if the trial court erred in invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof onto the appellant. Finally, the Court examined whether the forensic evidence and the testimony of witnesses were sufficient to establish the chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime.

Prosecution Fails to Prove Initial Onus

The Court noted that the prosecution’s case suffered from significant "loose ends." Although the police were informed of the children's deaths on 18 September 2012, no FIR was registered until 22 September 2012, upon a complaint by the estranged father. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of food items allegedly laced with poison or the accused's exclusive possession of the premises where the bodies were found.

Scientific Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Narrative

The Court highlighted a critical discrepancy between the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports and the postmortem findings. While the FSL report detected poison in roti and sabzi, the postmortem reports indicated that the stomachs of the deceased children were empty or contained only liquid. The Court emphasized that there was no credible link establishing that the accused had administered the poisoned food, rendering the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence insufficient.

Unreliable Testimony of Witnesses

Regarding the testimony of a prosecution witness who claimed to be in a relationship with the accused, the Court observed that the witness's statements were uncorroborated and lacked evidentiary value. The Investigating Officer admitted that no recovery of love letters or credible digital evidence was made to support the witness's claims of an affair. Consequently, the bench rejected the motive theory as a "bald allegation" unsupported by evidence.

Misapplication of Section 106 Evidence Act

The Court clarified that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a tool for the prosecution to bypass its evidentiary requirements. Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum in Anees vs. The State Govt. of NCT, the bench reiterated that the section cannot be invoked to infer guilt simply because the accused failed to provide an explanation when the preceding circumstances were not sufficient to point toward guilt.

"It would be improper to seek explanation from the accused by shifting the burden upon her under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, as in other words, it would amount to asking the accused to prove her innocence."

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Observing that the trial court ignored vital discrepancies in the evidence, the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26 August 2015. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from custody immediately, unless required in other matters.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026