Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Shivam Singh @ Nanhe – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1108 of 2019
Decided On : 24-05-2023
MURDER - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 498A - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife and the order on sentence. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies, post-mortem report, and mobile phone location details, to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also considered the appellant's defense regarding the lack of motive and burden of proof. The legal provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were interpreted to shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain facts within his knowledge. The court relied on precedents to emphasize the accused's obligation to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, who was found dead in their rented room. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's presence with the deceased, mobile phone location details, and witness testimonies to establish the appellant's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the murder based on the evidence presented, including the post-mortem report indicating strangulation and the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's presence with the deceased, motive, burden of proof, and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the shift of burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to the accused to explain facts within his knowledge. Precedents were cited to highlight the accused's obligation to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established the foundational facts, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of learned Trial Court dated 27th May, 2019 whereby the appellant was convicted for murder of his wife Arti ("deceased"); and also the order on sentence dated 4th June, 2019 whereby the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17th April, 2015 at about 9.00 AM, Geeta Devi (PW-1), who was the mother of the deceased, went to meet her daughter/deceased, who was residing with the appellant in a rented room at H.No. RZ-311/B, Gali No.20, Tughalakabad Extn. When she reached the said room, she could not find her daughter on which she sought help of the landlord Rohit Kumar Sharma (PW-3) of the house to find her daughter/ deceased. The room was thereafter, opened with the spare key, and inside the room, her daughter/deceased was found lying dead, her body covered with a bed sheet and foul smell coming inside the room. Thereafter, PW-3 made a call to the police at number 100 and the information was recorded vide DD No. 6A, on which SI Rishi (PW-12) along with Ct.Munesh (PW-10) reached the spot. Crime team as well as the SDM of the area were called at the spot. Tehsildar Ajit Chaudhary reached the spot. The dead body was sent to the mortuary at AIIMS. SI Rishi took Geeta Devi and Shyam Singh, parents of the deceased, to the office of Shri Ajit Chaudhary where statement of Geeta Devi (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded. Thereafter, rukka (Ex.PW-12/A) was prepared by SI Rishi on which FIR No.525/2015 dated 17th April, 2015, under Sections 498A/304B IPC at PS Govind Puri was registered (Ex.PW-2/A). In the meanwhile, IO/Insp. Sunil Kumar (PW-19) had also reached the spot and had seized the article from the room (Ex.PW-12/D). The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination on 18th April, 2015, and the appellant could not be found anywhere in Delhi. It was later found that the appellant was a resident of Bareilly, and thereafter, a team of police officials led by SI Abhishek was sent to Bareilly, who arrested the appellant on 24th April, 2015 (Ex.PW-7/A) and brought him to Delhi. Disclosure statement of the appellant was also recorded (Ex.PW-12/G). And after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was charged for offences punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC. And to prove its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses.
3. Dr. Abhishek Yadav (PW-11) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18th April, 2015 and tendered his report (Ex.PW-11/A) and opined "on dissection of neck, greater cornu of hyoid on the right side is fractured, associated with hematoma. Hematoma is also present along the carotid sheath of the right side at the level of hyoid cartilage. Neck musculature is intact." He further opined "Uterus enlarged. Male fetus of length 19 cm (about 4 month gestational age) is present." Further, time since death as opined to be about two days and it was clarified during his examination-in-chief that "internal neck findings in postmortem report were suggestive of compression of neck due to strangulation".
4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove motive to constitute the offence which plays an important role in cases of circumstantial evidence and in the absence of which the appellant deserves to be acquitted. It was contended by learned counsel that in cases under Section 302 IPC, conviction cannot be based solely upon the basis of `last seen' theory, and reliance was placed on the decision in 2003 SCC OnLine SC 32, Jabir & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the tower location details as relied upon by the prosecution, reveal that the mobile alleg
The main legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the accused to explain facts within his knowledge, and the accused's obli....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act can shift to the accused when the prosecution establishes foundational facts and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation ....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must put all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
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 judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
The burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death and the consequences of offering false explanations.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their special knowledge, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse infer....
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
