​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact [Section 106]
1. Introduction
In judicial proceedings, a court does not accept facts merely because they are asserted. If a party desires the Court to believe the existence of a particular fact, the responsibility of proving that fact lies on that party. This principle reflects the fundamental rule that he who asserts must prove.
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 specifically deals with the burden of proof concerning a particular fact, as distinguished from the burden of proving the entire case.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 106
Section 106 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 any law expressly provides that the proof of such fact shall lie on some other person.

Thus, whenever a party relies on a specific factual assertion to support its case or defence, that party must lead evidence to establish that fact.

3. Illustrations
The application of Section 106 can be understood through the following illustrations:

• Illustration (a):
  A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. The burden of proving such admission lies on A.
• Illustration (b):
  B wishes the Court to believe that at the time of the alleged theft, he was elsewhere (plea of alibi). The burden of proving this fact lies on B.

4. Scope and ApplicationSection 106 applies where:

• A party asserts a specific fact in support of its claim or defence;
• Such fact is not presumed by law; and
• No statutory provision shifts the burden of proving that fact to another person.

This Section does not require a party to prove the entire case, but only the specific fact relied upon by that party. It operates independently of the general burden of proof under Section 104.

5. Judicial Interpretation
​Courts have consistently applied Section 106 to allocate the burden of proof regarding specific facts:

• In State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, it was held that when an accused takes the plea of alibi, the burden of proving it lies upon him.
• In S.J. Ebenezer v. Velayudhan, the Supreme Court held that where a landlord seeks eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, the burden of proving genuine need lies on the landlord.
• In Neelakandan v. Mallika Begum, the tenant claimed protection under the Slum Areas Act. The landlady denied that the property was situated in a slum area. The Court held that the burden of proving that the property was situated in a slum area lay on the tenant.
• In Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity, it was held that when fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is alleged, the burden of proving such allegations lies on the party who asserts them.

6. Difference between Section 106 and Section 104

• Section 104 deals with the burden of proving the entire case and all facts necessary to entitle a party to a judgment.
• Section 106, on the other hand, concerns the burden of proving only a particular fact relied upon by a party, not the whole chain of facts.

Thus, Section 106 operates in a narrower field and supplements the general rule contained in Section 104.

7. Relation with Section 107
While Section 106 deals with proof of a particular fact, Section 107 deals with the burden of proving a fact that is necessary to make another fact or piece of evidence admissible. Both provisions work together to ensure that facts essential for belief or admissibility are properly established before the Court.

8. Conclusion
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reinforces the principle that a party cannot expect the Court to accept a factual assertion unless it is proved. By placing the burden of proving a particular fact on the party who asserts it, the provision promotes fairness, clarity, and judicial efficiency in adjudication.