Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked To Make Up Prosecution’s Inability To Produce Evidence Of Circumstances Pointing To The Guilt Of An Accused: SC
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up for the prosecution’s inability to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The Court acquitted the Appellants and set aside their convictions under Section 302 of the IPC which were upheld by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta explained, “It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that Section 106 of the Evidence Act shall apply and the onus to explain would shift on to the accused only after the prosecution succeeds in establishing the basic facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer a proper explanation about the existence of the said other facts, the Court can draw an appropriate inference against the accused. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence - but only if the prosecution has already established other essential ingredients sufficient to shift the onus on to the accused.”
AOR Rajeev Singh represented the Appellants, while AOR Gopal Prasad appeared for the Respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased was found murdered in her home where she was residing with her children and her late husband’s brothers, including the Appellants. It was alleged that the Appellants were pressuring the deceased to relinquish her share of the property, leading to frequent disputes.
On the day of the incident, the deceased’s sons left for school in the morning. Upon returning, they found the house locked. A search led by her brother and other relatives eventually uncovered her body inside the locked house. The autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) to hold that the Appellants were under the burden to explain the circumstances under which the deceased who was living in the same premises, was found dead in her room.
The Appellants argued that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to establish the circumstance of “last seen together.” Hence, they submitted that they could not have been placed under the burden to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was found (by manual strangulation).
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on “purely circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and the theory of last seen together” since there were no witnesses to claim to have seen the alleged incident.
The Court explained the law concerning the invocation of shifting of onus under Section 106 of the Act for referring to its decision Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956), wherein the Apex Court held, “This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.”
The Court also referred to its decision in Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, wherein the Apex Court held, “Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “There is no credible evidence on record of the case to establish the exclusive presence of the accused-appellants with Hamida Parween(deceased) in the house in question at any time before the incident, justifying the shifting of the burden of proof on to the accused-appellants by invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the theory of last seen together attributed by the prosecution could not be proved beyond all manner of doubt.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Nusrat Parween v. State Of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 955)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Rajeev Singh; Advocates Samant Singh and Pushpanjali Singh
Respondent: AOR Gopal Prasad; Advocate Tulika Mukherjee
