Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15232
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, Bhuwan Goyal, JJ
Devendra Nagar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1328/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Susheel Pujari, Shyam Bihari Guatam
For the Respondents: Amit Kumar Punia
Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove foundational facts; the burden only shifts to the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304B - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence - Trial Court shifted burden of proof to accused on the basis that death occurred in matrimonial home - Application of Section 106 of Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the foundational facts, including the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Standards of proof - The "five golden principles" (Panchsheel) must be satisfied: (1) circumstances must be fully established; (2) facts must be consistent only with guilt; (3) circumstances must be conclusive; (4) must exclude every other hypothesis; (5) the chain of evidence must be complete. (Paras 153-154 of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case).
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, who died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of relatives. The trial court convicted the appellant, citing Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the deceased died behind closed doors in the appellant's house, and the appellant failed to prove a plea of alibi.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime at the time of death. Medical experts admitted the possibility of suicidal death. There was no evidence establishing the means of strangulation, and the chain of circumstantial evidence remained broken and incomplete.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof without establishing foundational facts, and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. The burden shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes the basic facts. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
- assault
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
-
burden of proof
- section 106 indian evidence act
- circumstantial evidence
-
defenses
- alibi
-
expert evidence
- medical evidence
-
burden of proof
-
evidence
Judgment
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 28.04.2026
Date on which judgement is reserved : 28.04.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgement
Date of pronouncement : 11.05.2026
Per Hon’ble MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
By way of this criminal appeal, the appellant-accused (for brevity, ‘appellant’) has assailed the legality and validity of the judgement dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.37/2014 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.20,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional
simple imprisonment.
The relevant facts in nutshell are that the complainant Kalulal (PW5) lodged a written report at about 10:00 am on 30.03.2014 with Police Station Bhawani Mandi wherein, it was averred that his daughter-Dhapu Bai was married about ten years ago to the appellant who used to beat her. It was stated that on that day, at about 7:00 am, her father-in-law-Gopal informed him telephonically that his daughter has died and when he went to Haripura, he found the mark of injuries on her head and neck. It was alleged that his daughter was either beaten to death by the appellant or by throttling. Based thereupon, an FIR No.128 dated 30.03.2014 was registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar for the offence under Section 302/304B IPC. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC whereunder, charge was also framed against him. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.
Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and there was no legally admissible evidence available on record against him. He contended that although, the case is based on circumstantial evidence but, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to only conclusion of his guilt. Referring to and relying upon the testimony of Kalulal (PW5), Badrilal (PW7), Balram (PW8), Sita (PW9), Balchand (PW12) and Prem Bai (PW15)-father, mother and other relatives of the deceased, he would contend that the allegation against the appellant of beating the deceased could not be established therefrom. Inviting attention of this Court towards the postmortem report (Ex.P9) of the body of the deceased as also the testimony of Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta (PW13) and Dr. Rohitashv (PW14), learned counsel submitted that even it was not proved that it was a case of homicidal death and a possibility of it being a suicidal death, could not be ruled out. He submitted that even otherwise, there was no evidence that the strangulation was either on account of throttling or by any other means. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgement impugned dated 31.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another Vs. State of MP : MANU/SC/0065/2010.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, contended that findings of the learned trial Court are based on appreciation of cogent evidence available on record in its right perspective which warrant no interference. He further submitted that the prosecution was able to establish guilt of the appellant by establishing the complete chain of circumstances leading to irresistible conclusion only of his guilt. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
As per the prosecution case, the appellant and the deceased were married for about ten years, he used to beat her almost on daily basis and ultimately, murdered her in the night of 29.03.2014 either by beating or by strangulat
