S.106 Evidence Act Inapplicable When Prosecution Fails to Discharge Initial Onus of Guilt: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case - 2025-08-06

Rajasthan High Court Acquits Two in 1999 Murder Case, Citing Failure of Prosecution and Unreliable Witnesses

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted Babu Lal and Nauratmal, who were serving life sentences for a 1999 murder, highlighting the prosecution's failure to establish a prima facie case. The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu overturned the 2001 conviction, ruling that the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT cannot be shifted to the accused when the prosecution's own case is built on a weak foundation of hostile and unreliable witnesses.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to July 8, 1999, when a complaint was filed by Jala Ram, cousin of the deceased, Bhanwar Lal. The complaint alleged that Babu Lal, owner of Agrawat Marble, and his associate Nauratmal beat Bhanwar Lal, an employee, with a fan belt on suspicion of theft. The complaint named four individuals—Shyam Singh, Darbar, Hari Ram, and Ramavtar—as having witnessed the assault. Later, Bhanwar Lal was found dead, allegedly by hanging.

The trial court, based on the evidence presented, convicted both Babu Lal and Nauratmal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged this judgment, leading to the present appeal.

Arguments in the High Court

The defense counsel argued that the prosecution's case collapsed as all four eyewitnesses named in the initial complaint were declared hostile during the trial. It was further contended that the testimony of two other witnesses, Rameshwar (PW-10) and Birdhi Chand (PW-11), who were introduced by the prosecution two weeks after the incident, was unreliable and appeared to be a strategic "planting" of evidence. The defense pointed to the postmortem report (Ex.P.15), which found no external injuries on the deceased’s body, directly contradicting the witnesses' claims of a brutal beating.

The Public Prosecutor countered by arguing that the fracture of the hyoid bone, as noted in the postmortem report, was indicative of strangulation rather than suicide by hanging. The prosecution also emphasized the suspicious conduct of the accused, who allegedly fled the scene instead of reporting the death to the police. They invoked Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT , contending that the accused, being present at the scene, had a special knowledge of the facts and were obligated to explain the circumstances of the death.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously dismantled the prosecution's case, noting several critical flaws.

1. Hostile and Unreliable Witnesses: The bench observed that the entire foundation of the prosecution's case crumbled when the four eyewitnesses named in the complaint turned hostile. Regarding the two witnesses introduced later, the court found their testimony doubtful for several reasons: - They were not named in the original complaint. - Their statements were recorded two weeks after the incident. - Their claim of a severe beating with a "patta" was directly contradicted by the postmortem report, which stated, "no injury marks were on the body of the deceased."

2. Contradiction by Medical Evidence: The court gave significant weight to the medical evidence. The postmortem report and the testimony of the doctors who conducted it (PW-13 and PW-18) consistently stated that the cause of death was "Asphyxia due to hanging." The absence of any other injuries proved fatal to the prosecution's narrative of a brutal assault. The court rejected the prosecutor's theory regarding the hyoid bone fracture, deferring to the expert medical opinion on record.

3. Application of Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT : A crucial aspect of the judgment was the court's refusal to invoke Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT . The bench clarified that this provision does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quoting a Supreme Court precedent, the judgment emphasized: > "The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT ... The said provision cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all elements necessary to establish the offence."

The court concluded that since the prosecution failed to discharge its initial onus through credible evidence, the burden could not be shifted to the accused to explain the death. The court also held that "suspicion howsoever strong cannot be a substitute for evidence," noting that the accused's conduct of not reporting the death was insufficient for a conviction.

Final Decision

In light of the glaring inconsistencies, lack of credible evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to meet its foundational burden of proof, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment and sentence dated June 22, 2001, were quashed and set aside, acquitting both Babu Lal and Nauratmal of all charges.