The principle underlying under section 106 of the Evidence Act, –

(i) Is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof, applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the

defendant.

(ii) It can also apply when the fact is such as to be capable of being known also by persons other than the defendant.

(iii) It cannot apply when the fact is such as to be capable of being known also by persons other than the defendant.

(iv) This section casts a burden on an accused person to prove that no crime was committed by proving facts especially within his knowledge and it warrants the conclusion that if anything is unexplained which the court thinks the accused could

explain, he ought therefore to be found guilty. It affect the onus of proving the guilt of the accused.

(v) Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply

only to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts

unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.

(vi) It is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge

of the accused.