Section 109

Normally, the person making an accusation must prove it. But some facts are so personal or hidden that only the individual concerned can realistically know and prove them—like whether they had a ticket, a licence, or a particular intention. This rule, carried forward from Section 106 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shifts the burden of proving such peculiarly personal facts to the person who holds that knowledge, so that prosecutions or claims aren't stalled by demanding impossible proof from the other side.

Indian courts, interpreting the identical earlier provision (Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have consistently held that this section is an exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove its case, and it does not shift the overall burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts have said it applies narrowly to facts that are exclusively or especially within a person's own knowledge—such as possession of a ticket, licence, or explanation for being found with stolen property—rather than to broad questions like guilt or innocence itself.

• Myth: This section means the accused must prove their entire innocence.
  Fact: Courts have clarified it only shifts the burden for specific facts especially within someone's personal knowledge, not the overall burden of proving guilt, which still rests on the prosecution.
• Myth: It can be used to force someone to prove any fact the other side finds inconvenient.
  Fact: It applies narrowly to facts that are truly and especially within a person's own knowledge, like intention or possession of a ticket—not to general or shared facts.