Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Nagendra Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1903 of 2019
Decided On : 14-09-2021
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Burden is always on prosecution to bring home guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt – Section 106 constitutes an exception to Section 101 – Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain other facts which are within special knowledge of accused – When accused fails to offer proper explanation about existence of said other facts, Court can always draw appropriate inference – When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to chain of circumstances – In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if chain of circumstances which is required to be established by prosecution is not established, failure of accused to discharge burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act is not relevant at all – When chain is not complete, falsity of defence is no ground to convict accused. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Murder and disappearance – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Evidence adduced by prosecution shows that at the time of alleged incident, there were other members of family of accused with accused in his house – However, it is not even case of prosecution that relationship between appellant and his deceased wife was strained or that relationship between deceased wife and appellant’s parents was strained – On the contrary, some of prosecution witnesses have stated that their relationship was cordial – Fact that other members of family of appellant were present shows that there could be another hypothesis which cannot be altogether excluded – Facts established do not rule out existence of any other hypothesis – Facts established cannot be said to be consistent only with one hypothesis of guilt of appellant – Circumstances established by prosecution do not lead to only one possible inference regarding guilt of appellant-accused – Only on the basis of post-mortem report, appellant could not have been convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and consequently for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 15, 17, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is the accused. The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bagah, West Champaran by his Judgement and Order dated 29th August 2013 convicted the appellant for both offences. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offences punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Findings of Court:
There is no explanation brought on record by prosecution for the delay in registering First Information Report. Though post-mortem report was available on 18th November 2011, First Information Report was belatedly registered on 25th August 2012. Guilt of accused has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The appellant is the accused. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bagah, West Champaran by his Judgment and Order dated 29th August 2013 convicted the appellant for both the offences. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offences punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. A Division Bench of Patna High Court by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22nd April 2019 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two verdicts, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 18th November 2011, it was reported that the appellant’s wife died due to burn injuries. On the basis of the information furnished by one Shri Mahesh Sah, Unnatural Death Case (for short “U.D. Case”) was registered on the same day. On 18th November 2011, autopsy was done by PW-9 Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was “asphyxia due to pressure around neck by hand and blunt substance.” On the basis of the directions of a senior police officer, PW-10 Shri Rajan Kumar Pandey registered First Information Report on 25th August 2012. At that time, he was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of Gobardhana Police Station, District West Champaran. The First Information Report was registered for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, a charge under Section 201 of IPC was added. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were framed against the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused submitted that none of the witnesses except the official witnesses have supported the prosecution case and that the conviction of the appellant is based solely on the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report. He pointed out that the testimony of PW-1 to 5 has been already discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. He submitted that except for the post-mortem report, no other material has been relied upon by the Trial Court as well as High Court for convicting the appellant. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Balaji Gunthu Dhule vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685 in support of his submissions.
6. He submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses brings on record an important fact that when the incident constituting the alleged offence occurred, there were other members of the family of the appellant-accused present in the house. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the appellant and the deceased were leading a normal matrimonial life. He submitted that PW-5, Smt. Chandrakali Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, has not supported prosecution. She stated in the deposition that the incident of fire took place when the deceased was boiling milk for her child. He pointed out that even PW-5-a, Shri Mahesh Sah who gave a report of unnatural death on 18th November 2011 did not support the prosecution. He submitted that a complete chain of events establishing
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
