The significance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Additional Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 04.11.2019, passed by the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 205(NL)/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months, for killing his wife.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the father of the appellant/prosecution witness-1 (PW-1) submitted an FIR dated 29.10.2017 to the Officer-In-Charge of the Ghilamara Police Station stating that on the night of 28.10.2017, his son, the appellant had killed his daughter-in-law by assaulting her. In pursuance to the FIR submitted by PW-1, Ghilamara P.S. Case No. 130/2017 under Section 302 IPC was registered. After investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet, having found a prima-facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

4. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, 16 (sixteen) prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court. After examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court came to a finding on the basis of circumstantial evidence and as he could not give any explanation for the death of his wife, in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act that the appellant was guilty of having killed his wife. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the offence of murder under Section 300 IPC. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness to the crime. He submits that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive for the crime has to be present and proved by the prosecution. However, in the present case, the prosecution had not been able to show the presence of any motive for the appellant to have murdered his wife. He submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses do not show the involvement of the accused in the death of his wife and the explanation given by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he has stated that he had slept in his father’s room and not in his own room with his wife, proved that the appellant could not have been the perpetrator of the crime.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of motive, the case of the prosecution has to be discarded and in this respect he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh), reported in (2022) Live Law (SC) 229. He also submits that as there is no evidence to show the involvement of the appellant in causing the death of his wife, the learned Trial court erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of suspicion. He submits that in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot substitute the requirement of the prosecution to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the administration of criminal justice, where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence and where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and another towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. He further submits that in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down 5 (five) co