Section 105 Of The Indian Evidence Act: The Burden Of Proof Lies With The Person Claiming A Fact, Specially While Making A Special Defense

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Vijayee Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh brings attention to essential legal principles of criminal jurisprudence such as the burden of proof, the prosecution’s responsibilities, standards for assessing evidence and claim of exception. It revolves around a violent incident that occurred on 29 May, 1981 in Tirro Village, Varanasi District. Two deceased Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh were killed whereas injuries were sustained by the accused persons too. The trial held and convicted all the 14 accused persons under section 302 r/w 149 of IPC. Later on, the case was brought before the High Court where two judges shared diverging views on the issue. The plea of self-defense was put forth which was later on, dealt by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court underscored the principles for evidence assessment, elucidated the burden of proof upon the prosecution and onus to establish preponderance of probabilities on the accused claiming self-defense and upheld the decision of the trial court.

FACTS:

1. The incident took place on 29 May 1981 at around 08:00 AM, in Tirro village of Varanasi district. A riot arose in the village in which Mahendra Singh (Deceased 1) and Virendra Singh (Deceased 2) were killed and Vijay Narain Singh (PW-1), Uma Shankar Singh (PW-2) and Kailash Singh got injured. Considering these offences, 14 accused were tried under Section 148 and Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Chirkut Singh (accused no. 6) was tried under section 307 of IPC for an attempt to murder of PW-1 and rest of the accused persons were tried under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC for injuring PW-2 and Kailash Singh.
2. It is purported that deceased persons, prosecution witnesses and accused belonged to the same village and were rivals since 1972. On 29 May 1981, PW-1 went to his pumping set where PW-2 and Kailash Singh were also present. Deceased no. 1 and 2 were also going there but they were killed when they reached the old building of Accused no. 5. Accused Nos. 1,3,4 and 6 carried guns while the rest of the accused persons were armed with lathis. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 had shot deceased no 1 and accused no. 4 shot had shot deceased no 2, resulting to the death of both.  Accused carrying lathis advanced toward PW-1, PW-2, and Kailash Singh. PW-1 escaped unhurt. 
3. Considering the testimonies of main eyewitnesses; PW-1 and PW-2, the trial court convicted all the 14 accused under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced life imprisonment to them.
4. Two appeals were put forth before the High Court of Allahabad; one was preferred by the convicted persons while another was by the state requesting enhancement of the sentence. The matter went before a division bench consisting Justice Katju and Justice Aggarwal who held diverging opinions. Consequently, the matter was put before a third judge, Justice Seth who confirmed the conviction of Accused Nos. 1,3,4 and 6 and entitled the rest of the accused persons with the benefit of doubt stating that only those individuals should be held guilty who were directly involved in the act of violence.
5. The accused persons were granted a special permission to appeal before the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal Nos. 375-77/87). Meanwhile, the state also appealed against the acquittal of the remaining accused persons (Criminal Appeal Nos. 372-74/87).

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: 

Section 96-106: These sections deal with the self-defense exception.

Section 3, Indian Evidence Act: This section elucidates the term evidence and other related terms like proved, disproved and not proved.

Section 105, Indian Evidence Act: It states that the burden of proof lies with the accused in case of pleading for an exception. 

Section 148 IPC: This section states that if a person is guilty of rioting, being armed with weapon which can cause death shall be punished with punishment of either description of a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 149 IPC: This section states that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in persuasion of a common object.

Section 302 IPC: This section states punishment for murder, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

ARGUMENTS:

PETITIONER:

1. The learned counsel contended that the witnesses were biased and likely falsely implicated innocent people. They made same allegations on all the 14 accused persons.
2. He further submitted that the prosecution had suppressed the origin of the occurrence and had hidden the whole truth along with concealing the fact that some of the accused persons were also injured.
3. He contended that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused persons. The doctors testified the presence of lacerated wounds on accused no. 14 and abrasions on accused no. 13. The X-ray of the accused no. 13’s thigh revealed 10 radio opaque shadows likely corresponding to pellets fired from a firearm.
4. It was contended that the injuries upon two accused persons indicated the signs of self-defense. Additionally, the wounds of gunshots indicated that the opposite party also carried firearms.  
5. In particular, PW-6 narrated his side of the incident which stated that the conflict arose during fishing activity in a pond where the members of the prosecution side came and shot the members of defense side.
6. The learned counsel referred to the case of Mohar Rai & Bharath' Rai v. The State of Bihar, [Mohar Rai & Bharath' Rai v. The State of Bihar, [1968] 3 SCR 525,] where it was stated by the court that it is duty of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused. If not explained, it may be considered that the prosecution’s evidence is partially true and case may incline towards defense side.
7. Another precedent, Rishi Kesh Singh & Ors. V. The state[Rishi Kesh Singh & Ors. v. The State, AIR 1970 Allahabad 51], was cited by the petitioner where the court held that if the defense can produce some evidence to support their claim of self-defense, it may be enough to establish a doubt on the prosecution’s side, mandating the prosecution to prove its narration beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. The learned counsel also cited the case of Dayabhai Chhaganvhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [n Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563] to emphasize that burden of proof always lies with the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. The counsel further argued that it is unclear if the accused had exceeded their right to self-defense. In the case of Amjad Khan v. The State [Amjad Khan v. The State, [1952] SCR 567] and Puran Singh and ors. V. State of Punjab [Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1674], it was held that this right could extend to causing death. 
10. The core argument of the learned counsel was that the accused acted in self-defense, the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and also failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

RESPONDENT:

1. The learned counsel submitted that the incident occurred in daylight and the witnesses should be believed irrespective of them being interested parties. He also supported the views of the trial court and Justice Aggarwal.
2. In support of the stance, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses which included a doctor (PW-7) who found contusions on PW-1,2 and Kailash Singh, likely caused by a blunt object, another doctor found gunshot injuries on the dead bodies of both the deceased, the Investigating Officer who found live cartridges during the investigation and an eye witness (P3-3) who testified that Accused Nos. 1,3,4, and 6 carried guns, while others carried lathis. PW-3 also described the violent incident.
3. In arguments, the learned counsel referred to the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. V. State of Bihar [Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1976 4 SCC 394 where the court held that mere failure to explain injuries does not automatically and completely discard the reliability of prosecution side.
4. Further, to support the credibility of the witnesses, the learned counsel cited the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Swaroop. The court stated that mere discrepancies in the statements of witnesses do not discard their credibility. Their testimonies shall be judged by overall coherence with the core narrative.
5. Regarding the burden of proof, the learned counsel cited the landmark case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [n K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 567] where it was held by the Apex Court that the accused must establish a preponderance of probabilities in case of raising a claim of self-defense. The accused is not supposed to prove the self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt but a credible defense must be established by them.
6. The core argument of the learned counsel was that the accused exceeded their right to self-defense by shooting the deceased who did not pose any immediate threat to the accused.

JUDGEMENTS: 

THE TRIAL COURT:

1. The trial court relied upon the testimonies of eyewitnesses; PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted all 14 accused under section 302 read with section 149 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
2. The court rejected the plea of self-defense by accused no. 6 as there was insufficient evidence demonstrating fishing operations at the pond. Further, the injuries of accused no 13 and 14 could not be linked to the incident as the evidence are inconclusive.

THE HIGH COURT:

1. Two appeals were put forth before the Allahabad High Court; one by the convicted accused and another by the State for intensifying the sentence. The division bench was held by Justice Katju and Justice Aggarwal, who had diverging opinions regarding the appeals. Justice Katju allowed the convicted persons’ appeal and dismissed the state’s appeal whereas Justice Aggarwal disagreed with him and dismissed all the appeals. Therefore, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice Seth. The decision convicted and sentenced accused no. 1,3,4, and 6 and acquitted the remaining accused giving them benefit of doubt.
2. Justice Katju stated that the injuries on accused no 13 and 14 were not self-inflicted. He also noted that the bullet found un deceased no. 2 was shot from 16-Bore gun which was possessed by accused no 6. He concluded that the witnesses tried the tactic of false implication of the accused due to enmity and ordered total acquittal. However, Justice Aggarwal agreed with the judgement of the trial court.
3. Justice Seth rejected the plea of self-defense stating that the injury of accused no 14 might have occurred later and he also stated that the pellets in accused no 13 might have prior presence i.e. before the incident.

THE SUPREME COURT:

1. Two appeals were put forth before the Supreme Court; one by the convicted accused no. 1,3,4, and 6 (Criminal Appeal No. 375-377 of 1987) and another by the state against the acquittal of rest of the accused (Criminal Appeal No. 372-374 of 1987). The court observed the facts, analyzed the arguments and evaluated the evidence meticulously.
2. The court referenced the case of Pratap v. State of U.P. [Partap v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966], where it was noted that the issue of burden of proof is complex as the term has nowhere been defined in the Act. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and this is based on a principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution and is also entitled to the benefit of doubt. But, according to section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies with the accused if he claims any exception.
3. Regarding the plea of self-defense, the court observed that the deceased were merely walking towards the pump set with no deadly weapons. The accused exceeded their right to self-defense and intentionally killed the deceased.
4. The Supreme Court concluded the case, overturned the acquittal granted by Justice Katju and the partial conviction by Justice Seth and agreed with the judgement of Justice Aggarwal and the trial court. The court emphasized upon the inconsistencies found in the defense's argument of self-defense and relying upon the prosecution witnesses, upheld the conviction of the accused persons.

ANY DISSENT:

The complexities in witness assessment, evaluation of injuries and self-defense claim led to dissents among different judges’ views. Justice Katju was in favor of complete acquittal. His view demonstrates skepticism towards prosecution witnesses and inclination towards accepting the self-defense claim, whereas Justice Aggarwal trusted the trial court’s findings. Justice Seth came up with a balanced approach where he supported partial conviction. His view emphasized upon the importance of specific evidence related to each accused rather than a generalized decision. The dissent among the judges’ views highlights the importance of nuanced judicial evaluation in complex cases.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The present case has numerous legal issues concerning the burden of proof, prosecution’s duty to explain the facts and the standards for analyzing evidence in criminal cases. Below-mentioned are some valuable insights extracted from the judgement of the Apex Court.

1. Burden of Proof and Self Defense Plea

One of the major points in the present case is the burden of proof when the accused puts forth a self-defense plea. The court highlighted the principle that while the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can establish a plea of self-defense only by establishing a preponderance of probabilities that means by establishing a degree of certainty in the mind of the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. This distinction reflects that the burden of proof on the accused pleading self-defense is comparatively lighter.    

2. Non-Explanation of Injuries

Regarding the prosecution’s failure to elucidate the injuries upon accused persons, the Court cited the judgement in Mohar Rai & Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar [n Mohar Rai & Bharath' Rai v. The State of Bihar, [1968] 3 SCR 525] stated two significant inferences. First is that the prosecution’s evidence might be not wholly true and second is that the injuries could support the defense’s narration. However, the court also states that non-explanation of injuries does not completely and by default, invalidate the prosecution’s case. The reliability of evidence must be considered.

3. Credibility of Witnesses

The court perused the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. This exhibits that credible witnesses form a base for the decision in the court.

4. Legal Precedents

The judgement extracts insights from various legal precedents to elucidate the standards for examining evidence and legal principles. For instance, the court referred the case of Rishi Kesh Singh & Ors. V. The state [Rishi Kesh Singh & Ors. v. The State, AIR 1970] to note that the plea of self-defense, even in the absence of conclusive foundation, can establish a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case.

CURRENT LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE

1. Self-defense claim and burden of proof

According to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies with the accused when he claims any exceptions in the IPC.  It is necessary for the accused to provide evidence on a balance of probabilities that shows that their action was justified under self-defense. However, once such evidence is introduced by the accused, the burden again shifts back to the prosecution to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not in self-defense. 

The current legal system emphasizes upon the necessity for proportionality and immediacy in self-defense claims. The defense must prove the immediate threat to life or serious injury and the force which was used was proportionate and necessary to avoid that threat.

2. Evaluating Witness Credibility

In current legal system, credible witness continues to form crucial foundation for judgements. The credibility of witness is evaluated by the courts based on their coherence, neutrality and consistency. Although, minor contradictions do not discredit a witness, but major contradictions affect the reliability of their testimonies.

3. Interpretation of Medical Evidence

In contemporary legal system, courts give significant importance to medical evidence that corroborate the events. These evidences are provided by qualified professionals. For instance, injuries, cause of death etc. Described by the doctors who are further examined and cross-examined before the court. The details are further examined by the court to decide whether the evidence supports the self-defense claim or the prosecution’s narration. 

Forensic technological advancement has made the medical evidence more reliable in criminal cases. Ballistic reports, DNA analysis and digital forensics are frequently used evidences to corroborate claims made by the party. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH FOREIGN JURISPRUDENCE

Doctrine of Self-defense and Burden of Proof

In India, the right to self-defense is codified in the Indian Penal Code, from section 96 to section 106. The burden of proof to establish that the actions were in self-defense lies with the accused person. However, In the US jurisprudence, the burden of proof in this scenario can lie with the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, the self-defense exception is codified in the Common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that the defendant’s act was not in self-defense.

In the case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions [Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] Appeal Cases 462], it was emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution throughout. In the case, Viscount Sankey noted that when evidence of death and malice is present, the defendant has right to demonstrate that the death was caused unintentionally. If the jury is convinced or has reasonable doubt about the defendant’s explanation, the defendant must be acquitted. The same was reiterated by the Rangoon High Court in the case of Emperor v. U. Daplama [Emperor v.U. Dampala, AIR 1937] .

Witness Credibility

In India, witness credibility is one of the crucial factors based on which a judgement is passed. Similarly, in the United States and the United Kingdom, the credibility of witness forms a paramount. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case provides significant insights into the dynamics of criminal jurisprudence, particularly in matters involving exception claims. The Apex Court’s decision highlights the nuanced application of legal principles such as critical assessment of witness credibility, evaluation of medical evidence and burden of proof. The case highlights the balanced approach of judiciary in delivering justice and safeguarding the rights of the accused. The comparative analysis elucidates that laws and provisions differ across jurisdictions but the core principle of fairness and ensuring justice remains paramount. The case sets a precedent emphasizing the need for meticulous judicial scrutiny in complex criminal cases. 

FAQs

1. What is the core issue in the case of Vijayee Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh?

The core issue is about a violent incident where several accused have been charged with serious charges including murder. The case delves into assessment of witnesses, evaluation of injuries sustained by the accused persons and the victims and acceptance of self-defense plea.

2. what was the main argument from the petitioner?

The main argument of the petitioner dealt with the plea of self-defense. It was contended that the injuries sustained by accused nos. 13 and 14 could be considered as evidence for establishing self-defense. They argued that the prosecution witnesses were highly biased and were trying to falsely implicate the innocent persons in the crime due to their old rivalry. 

3. What was the stance of respondent in the case?

 The respondent argued that accused violently attacked the victims leading to the death of two people. Eye-witnesses were produced before the court for providing consistent testimonies. Regarding the injuries sustained by the accused nos. 13 and 14, the respondent firmly stated that those injuries could have their presence even before the violent incident took place.

4. What was the verdict of trial court on the issue of self-defense?

The trial court rejected the plea of self-defense proposed by the accused, particularly accused no. 6. The court was of view that there was a lack of substantial evidence supporting the narration of accused no.6 about the fishing activity in the pond, which was the basis for claiming self-defense. The trial court also questioned the timing and nature of the injuries sustained by the accused persons and stated that they could have their prior presence. 

5. What was the major dissent regarding the case?

There were differences in the opinions of Justice Katju and Justice Aggarwal. Justice Katju accepted the narration that injuries sustained by the accused nos. 13 and 14 were inflicted by the opposite party during the incident. He also stated that prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, which made the prosecution’s case weak. He passed a judgement ordering a total acquittal of all the accused. On the other hand, Justice Aggarwal agreed with the judgement of the trial court and supported the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He rejected the plea of self-defense and dismissed the injuries of accused as irrelevant, thereby upholding the convictions.

6. What was the final judgement of the case?

The final judgement was passed by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court concluded the case, overturned the acquittal granted by Justice Katju and the partial conviction by Justice Seth and agreed with the judgement of Justice Aggarwal and the trial court. The court emphasized upon the inconsistencies found in the defense's argument of self-defense and relying upon the prosecution witnesses, upheld the conviction of the accused persons.

7. Does this case have any significance in future self-defense claims?

The case emphasizes upon the importance of substantial and lucid evidence in case of pleading for self-defense. It demonstrates the critical analysis by the court regarding the timing and nature of the injuries, credibility of witness, consistency of witness with their testimonies and any potential biases affecting the evidence. It also highlights that the burden of proof lies with the accused in case he pleads for self-defense.