SHAMBU NATH MEHRA versus THE STATE OF AJMER.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 12-03-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Set Aside

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~· -
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
199 
was and are satisfied thatit establishes the offences of 
murder and robbery against the appellant and not 
merely the minor offence of robbery or theft. It is 
impossible to accept the submission that the evidence 
does not establish any offence having been committed 
by the appellant. 
Having regard to what is established in the case 
and the principles deducible from the cases cited, we 
are satisfied that the appellant has been rightly con-
victed of the offences of murder and robbery. The 
appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
SHAMBU NATH MEHRA 
v. 
THE STATE OF AJMER. 
[VIVIAN BOSE and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Burden of proof-Proof of facts within especial knowledge-
Facts eqiially within the knowudge of the prosecution and the accused, 
if "especially within the knowledge" of the accused-Illustration, 
Scope of-Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 106, Illustration (b). 
The appellant was put up for trial under s. 420 of the Indian 
Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 194 7 
for obtaining a total sum of Rs. 23-12-0 from the Government as 
T.A., being second class railway fares for two journeys, one from 
Aimer to Abu Road and the other from Aimer to Reengus, without 
having actually paid the said fares. 
The prosecution proved from 
the railway books and registers that no such second class tickets 
were issued at Aimer on the relevant dates and the same witness 
who proved this also proved that tickets were not always issued and 
the passengers could pay the fare in the train and if the second 
class was fully booked, no further tickets were issued till the train 
arrived, in which case passengers sometimes bought third class or 
inter-class tickets and thereafter paid the difference to the guard of 
the train, if they could find second class accommodation on the 
arrival of the train. There was no proof that one or other of those 
courses were not followed by the appellant and the prosecution in-
stead of proving the absence of any such payments, in the same 
way as it had proved the non-issue of second class tickets, relied on 
Illustration (b) to s. 106 of the Evidence Act and contended that it 
was for the appellant to prove that he had actually paid the second 
class fares. 
1956 
WasimKhan 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
Imamj. 
1956 
March 12 
1956 
Shambu Nath 
Mehra 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
Held, that Illustration (b) to s. 106 of.the Evidence Act had no 
application, the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not warrant 
a conviction and the accused should, having regard to the long lapse 
of time, be acquitted. 
The St 1 v. 
A. 
That •· 106 of the Evidence Act does not abrogate the well· 
a e of 
1mcr established rule of criminal law that except in very exceptional 
classes of cases the burden that lies on the prosecution to prove its 
case never shifts ands. 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecu-
tion of that burden. 
On the contrary, it seeks to meet certain 
exceptional cases where it is impossible, or disproportionately diffi-
cult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are. especially 
within the knowledge of the accused and which can be proved by 
him without difficulty or inconvenience. But when knowledge of 
such facts is equally available to the prosecution if it chooses to 
exercise due diligence, they cannot be said to be especially within 
the knowledge of the accused and the section cannot apply. 
Attygalle v. Emperor, (A.J.R. 1936 P.O. 169) and Senevlratne 
v. R., ([1936] 3 All E.R. 36), referred to. 
That illustrations to a section do not exhaust its full content 
even as they cannot curtail or expand its ambit, and in applying 
e. 106 the balance of convenience, the comparative labour involved 
in finding out and proving the facts and the ease with which the 
accused can prove them must be taken into cOnsideration. 
That cases coming under ss. 
112 and 113 of the Indian 
Railways Act to which Illustration (b} to s. 106 has obvious 
application stand on a different footing. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 65 of 1954. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 2nd January 1953 of the Judicial 
Commissioner's Court at Ajmer in Criminal Appeal 
No. 3of1952 arising out oftlie judgment and order 
dated the 4th January, 1952 of the Court of Sessions 
Judge at Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 300of1951. 
B. P. Berry and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appel-
lant. 
G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.