Case Name : Perisami and Anr vs State of Tamil Nadu Case Reference: (1996) Supp 6 SCR 757 : (1996) 6 SCC 457 Neutral Citation: Case Number: Crl A 346/1993 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: AS Anand, KT Thomas (Author) Date: 25.09.1996
Section 105 does not water down the burden of proof as laid down in section 101 (Paras 17-19) It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the offence The legal presumption in section 105 does not displace the traditional burden on the prosecution Only when the prosecution has proved its case with reasonable certainty can the court rest on the presumption sections
Even if the evidence placed or relied upon by the accused does not discharge the burden under section 105, it can still raise a reasonable doubt as regards the necessary ingredients of the offence itself (Paras 18, 19)
Refer also: Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 472 Partap vs State of UP, (1976) 2 SCC 798
See also: Evidence - Section 101 IPC, Section 96 IPC, Section 97 IPC, Section 98 IPC, Section 99 IPC, Section 100 IPC, Section 101 IPC, Section 102 IPC, Section 103 IPC, Section 104 IPC, Section 105 IPC, Section 106 IPC - Section 302 IPC - Section 304 CrPC, Section 313 CrPC - Section 154 CrPC, Section 162 CrPC - Section 174
PDF (SCC): Periasami vs State of TN, (1996) 6 SCC 457.pdf
PDF: Perisami vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) Supp 6 SCR 757.pdf