2023 Supreme(SC) 1016

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Balvir Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal No. 2430 of 2014
Decided on : 06-10-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.
(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accused is not in any way modified by rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of Evidence Act.
(3) When facts are peculiarly within knowledge of accused, burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether proposition is an affirmative or negative one.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 498A read with Section 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Murder and cruelty – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Cause of death is due to poisoning – It is too much for convicts to say that presence of Aluminium Phosphide in viscera could be due to medicines which deceased used to take for her heart ailment – Such medicines even in high dosage would not lead to formation of Aluminium Phosphide in body – Theory of suicide as sought to be put forward on behalf of appellants completely ruled out – Dubious conduct of convict-husband of not informing family members about death of their daughter – It has been proved to satisfaction of court that deceased was in company of her husband i.e., appellant-convict at a point of time when something went wrong with her health – In such circumstances appellant-convict alone knew what happened to her until she was with him – Role of courts in such circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation or insignificant lacunas in evidence as otherwise criminals would receive encouragement and victims of crime would be totally discouraged by crime going unpunished – Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 29, 52, 62 and 63)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 106 and 101 – Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accused is not in any way modified by rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of Evidence Act – Section 106 of Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of Evidence Act – Court should apply Section 106 of Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution – To infer guilt of accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve prosecution of its legitimate burden – Until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, onus does not shift to accused – It does not absolve prosecution from duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within knowledge of accused and it does not throw burden of accused to show that no crime was committed. (Paras 34, 41 and 42)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Section 106 refers to cases where guilt of accused is established on evidence produced by prosecution unless accused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge which would render evidence of prosecution nugatory – If in such a situation, accused gives an explanation which may be reasonably true in proved circumstances, accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt truth of explanation – But if accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn scale against him – It is not for prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused – An intention not apparent from character and circumstances of the act must be established as especially within knowledge of person whose act is in question. (Paras 43, 44 and 45)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Manifest distinction exists between burden of proof and burden of going forward with evidence – Generally, burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition necessary to be established as foundation of an issue does not shift, but burden of evidence or burden of explanation may shift from one side to other according to testimony – If prosecution has offered evidence which if believed by court would convince them of accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, accused is in a position where he should go forward with countervailing evidence if he has such evidence – When facts are peculiarly within knowledge of accused, burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether proposition is an affirmative or negative one – He is not required to do so even though a prima facie case has been established, for court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict – However, accused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by court as confirming the conclusion indicated by evidence presented by prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might have been rebutted – Presumption of fact is an inference as to existence of one fact from existence of some other facts, unless truth of such inference is disproved. (Paras 46 and 49)

Facts of the case:

These appeals are at the instance of two convicts and are directed against a common judgment and order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2013 respectively by which High Court dismissed both appeals and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotdwar, Garhwal in the Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2008 holding Balvir Singh (husband) guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alongwith offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Maheshwari Devi (mother-in-law) guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

Findings of Court:

Circumstances narrated by us in para 28 of this judgment constitute more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on accused husband to explain what had actually happened on the date his wife died.

Result : Appeal dismissed.