2025 Supreme(SC) 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Balveer Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012
Decided on : 24-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Child witness – Evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on same footing as any other witness as long child is found to be competent to testify.
(2) Murder of wife and disappearance of evidence – If an offence takes place inside four walls of a house and where accused has all opportunity to plan and commit offence at the time and in circumstances of its choice, it will be extremely difficult for prosecution to lead direct evidence to establish guilt of accused.
(3) Burden of proof – Manifest distinction exists between burden of proof and burden of going forward with evidence.
(4) Circumstantial Evidence – Accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case – In a case of circumstantial evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential – Inference is drawn from established facts.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118 – Child witness – Evidentiary value – Evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on same footing as any other witness as long child is found to be competent to testify – Only precaution which court should take while assessing evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring – While appreciating testimony of a child witness courts are required to assess whether evidence of such witness is its voluntary expression and not borne out of influence of others and whether testimony inspires confidence – There is no rule requiring corroboration to testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on it – Insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that courts may exercise if deemed necessary in peculiar facts and circumstances of case. (Para 35)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 and 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of wife and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Incident preceded by demand of dowry and ill-treatment and torture – Body of deceased cremated in a clandestine manner – Daughter of accused and deceased and sole eye-witness to incident has supported prosecution case – Her testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground of delay in her examination by I.O. – There is nothing on record that would lead to inference that delay in recording statement of child witness was done deliberately in order to manipulate or concoct case against respondent accused, rather such delay appears to be inadvertent with no sinister motive or design in mind – Courts are expected to deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not discard evidence on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory considerations or insignificant lacunae – Implication of respondent accused was not an afterthought – It is also not the case of respondent accused that deceased was suffering from any ailment nor is there any evidence worth name to suggest possibility of her death occurring due to any health issue – High Court whilst passing impugned judgment completely failed to advert to and refer to Section 106 of Evidence Act, which was crucial in a case involving circumstantial evidence of such nature – If an offence takes place inside four walls of a house and where accused has all opportunity to plan and commit offence at the time and in circumstances of its choice, it will be extremely difficult for prosecution to lead direct evidence to establish guilt of accused – Circumstances constitute more than a prima facie case to enable prosecution to invoke Section 106 of Evidence Act and shift burden on accused husband to explain what had actually happened on the day and date his wife died – Impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by High Court set aside, and judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court restored. (Paras 43, 44, 45, 49, 65, 66, 87, 88, 89 and 91)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Improvisation – Appreciation of testimony of a witness is a hard task – There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence – Witness who has improvised its testimony must be first confronted with that part of its previous statement that omits or contradicts improvisation by bringing it to its notice and give the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny omission or contradiction – Improvisation by way of tutoring must be eradicated only in manner envisaged under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of Evidence Act – Mere bald assertion that there is possibility of witness in question being tutored is not sufficient – In assessing value of evidence of eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in circumstances of case, it is possible to believe their presence at scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. (Paras 51, 53, 56, 57 and 58)

(D) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards involvement or guilt of accused – Accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case – In a case of circumstantial evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential – Inference is drawn from established facts as circumstances lead to particular inferences – Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether chain of circumstances is complete, and when circumstances therein are collectively considered, same must lead only to irresistible conclusion that accused alone is perpetrator of crime in question – All circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused. (Paras 63 and 64)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Court should apply Section 106 of Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution – Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up inability of prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to guilt of accused – 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 – Section 106 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, if they happened to be present when it took place – Intention underlying the act or conduct of any individual is seldom a matter which can be conclusively established. (Paras 75, 76, 78 and 79)

(F) 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 reasonable doubt, accused, if in a position, 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 reasonable doubt before it can convict. (Para 80)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh and is directed against judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh of judicature at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2004 whereby High Court allowed appeal filed by respondent herein and acquitted him of offence under Section(s) 302, 201 and 34 respectively of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Respondent accused shall surrender before Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to undergo the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court.

Result : Appeal allowed.