2024 Supreme(SC) 409

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Anees – Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. Of NCT – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015
Decided On : 03-05-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Burden of proof – It is not for prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused.
(2) Conduct of accused and disclosure statement – Evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of Evidence Act quite apart from admissibility of disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
(3) Murder of wife – Where offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or an unusual manner, benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him.
(4) Contradiction of witness – Court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with testimony of witness in court.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act – 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 – 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 – Positive facts must always be proved by prosecution – But same rule cannot always apply to negative facts – It is not for prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused – When a person does not act with some intention other than that which character and circumstances of act suggest, it is not for prosecution to eliminate all other possible intentions – If accused had a different intention that is a fact especially within his knowledge and which he must prove. (Paras 36, 43, 44 and 46)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act has no application to cases where fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to accused but also to others – A 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 – 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 – 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 47, 48 and 51)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and Exception to Section 300 – Murder of wife – Life imprisonment – Marital relationship of appellant with deceased was strained on account of deceased leaving house all of a sudden without permission of appellant and thereafter returning late in night hours – Weapon of offence was also discovered at instance of appellant herein by drawing a Panchanama under provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Cases are frequently coming before courts where husband, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards character, has gone to the extent of killing his wife – These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside house and it becomes very difficult for prosecution to lead evidence – Defence put forward by appellant that two unidentified persons entered house and inflicted injuries on deceased and also on his body is found to be false – Even while discarding evidence in form of discovery Panchanama, conduct of appellant would be relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Appellant inflicted as many as twelve blows with a knife on deceased who was unarmed and helpless – Present case is not one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but same is a case of murder – Where offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or an unusual manner, benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant given liberty to prefer appropriate representation addressed to State Government praying for remission of sentence. (Paras 5, 10, 54, 56, 59, 82, 83, 84 and 86)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 27 – Conduct of accused and disclosure statement – Evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of Evidence Act quite apart from admissibility of disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Although conduct of accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Evidence Act, yet same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder – Like any other piece of evidence, conduct of accused is also one of circumstances which court may take into consideration along with other evidence on record, direct or indirect. (Paras 59 and 61)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 145 – Contradiction of witness – Court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with testimony of witness in court – Words ‘if duly proved’ used in Section 162 Cr.P.C. clearly show that record of statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from witness during cross-examination and also during cross-examination of Investigating Officer – Statement before Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act, by drawing attention to parts intended for contradiction – A good, seasoned and experienced Public Prosecutor will not only bring contradictions on record, but will also cross-examine hostile witness at length to establish that he had actually witnessed incident as narrated in his police statement. (Paras 64, 66 and 69)

(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 311 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Fair trial – Free and fair trial is very foundation of criminal jurisprudence – Court must be conscious of serious pitfalls and dereliction of duty on part of prosecuting agency – Upon failure of prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of aloofness, trial judge must exercise vast powers conferred under Section 165 of Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C. respectively to elicit all necessary materials by playing active role in evidence collecting process – Judge has uninhibited power to put questions to witness either during chief-examination or cross-examination or even during re-examination for this purpose – If a judge feels that a witness has committed an error or slip, it is duty of Judge to ascertain whether it was so and chances of erring may accelerate under stress of nervousness during cross-examination. (Paras 68, 73 and 74)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of a convict accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Findings of Court:

High Court committed no error in affirming judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court, holding appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his wife. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors are responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

Result : Appeal dismissed.