Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Ravi Rai - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1725 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Mr. Mohit Batra and Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State with Insp. Manish Bhati, Police Station Bhalswa Dairy.
IMPORTANT POINT
The burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 depends on the prosecution's ability to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Bail - Regular Bail - Section 302 IPC - [Section 302 IPC] - The court discussed the burden of proof on the prosecution and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment highlighted the legal position that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act will come into play to shift the burden on the accused to explain the facts within his knowledge only when the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the ultimate call on the probative or evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses will be taken by the trial court during the trial. However, at the present stage, the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution tilts the balance in favor of the petitioner for granting him bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No.817/2021 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a quarrel with his wife and caused the death of their four-month-old baby.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, and the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. The court concluded that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of support from prosecution witnesses and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 depends on the prosecution's ability to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.817/2021 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2021, the FIR was registered on the complaint of the wife of the petitioner/accused under Section 302 IPC. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that on 03.12.2021, in a drunken state complainant's husband i.e., the petitioner herein had a quarrel with the complainant over the issue as to who would look after the child and then, he started giving beatings to the complainant and stated that he would eliminate the cause of quarrel and thereafter, he caught hold of the four month old baby and hit the head of the baby on the wall, who died on the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant namely Nisha Rai, who was examined as PW-4 did not support the case of the prosecution. Inviting attention of the Court to the testimony of PW-4, he submits that the said witness turned hostile and was cross-examined by the learned APP for the State and in her cross-examination also, nothing came out in favour of the prosecution version.
4. He further submits that the prosecution has also examined the landlord of the premises where the petitioner was residing at the relevant time, as PW-2. Referring to the testimony of PW-2, the learned counsel submits that even the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he also turned hostile. He, therefore, contends that there is no evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution.
5. He submits that the petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 05.12.2021 and has spent almost 02 years, 04 months in custody and since the investigation is complete and the trial is underway, the custody of the petitioner is no more required.
6. He submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal record nor he is a flight risk. He further submits that the material witnesses have already been examined and there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses in the event he is granted on bail. He, therefore, urges the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has argued on the lines of the Status Report.
8. He submits that in the present case since the complainant, happens to be the wife of the petitioner, therefore, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits the story put forth by the complainant in her testimony is to the effect that some unknown persons barged into their house and gave beating to her husband and when she tried to save her husband, someone pushed her due to which her son fell down on the floor and her son received injuries and died.
9. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the burden is on the petitioner to prove the fact of attack by unknown persons as the said fact is especially within his knowledge.
10. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Section 106 of the Evidence Act will not be attracted in the present case as the complainant herself did not support the case of the prosecution.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned APP for the State and have perused the record.
12. It is not in dispute that the complainant was examined as PW-4 but she has not supported the case of the prosecution. The same is the position in case of another witness namely, Sanjay Gupta, the landlord of the petitioner who was examined as PW-2. Undisputedly, there is no other eye-witness.
13. The learned APP has invoked the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence act, 1872 in support of his submission, therefore, apt would it be to refer to the said Section which reads as under;-
"Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that f
