M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

already acquitted for the offence u/s. 342 and 365 IPC – s. 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused – High Court erred in applying s. 106 – Thus, there is absolute absence of any basis for its application against the appellant in view of the evidence on record – Prosecution miserably failed to establish that the appellant had abetted the victim to commit suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 306, IPC cannot be sustained – Appellants conviction u/s. 306 quashed and set aside and he is acquitted. [Paras 14, 17-22] Criminal law – Mens rea – Meaning of: Held: Mens rea means a guilty mind – As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element, the nature of which, will depend upon definition of the particular crime in question – Although it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term ‘mens rea’ as the circumstance to determine the existence of mens rea depends upon the ingredients constituting the particular offence and the expression used in the definition of the particular offence to constitute such offence. [Para 15] Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – Application of s. 106: Held: Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in s. 101 which casts burden of proving a fact on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue – s. 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden – It says that when a fact to be proved, either affirmatively or negatively, is especially within the knowledge of a person, it is for him to prove it – s. 106 in its application to criminal cases, applies where the defence of the accused depends on his proving a fact especially within his knowledge and of nobody else – s.106 cannot be used to shift the burden of proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused – It can only when the prosecution led evidence, which, if believed, will sustain a conviction or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question of shifting the onus to prove such facts on the accused would arise. [Para 18] Case Law Cited M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, [2010] M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 1056 [2024] 2 S.C.R.