Prosecution Failed To Prove Chain Of Incriminating Circumstances: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 42 Year Old Murder Case

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:

“While considering the applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it should be kept in mind that the said provision in anyway does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has proved that the burden in regard to such facts was within the special knowledge of the accused, then only burden may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same.”

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, one Geeta Devi was married to the accused (Kailash Nath) for about one and a half years. It is alleged that on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was done to death by the accused on the night between 4-5 July 1982 by setting her ablaze at her matrimonial house.

In respect of the said incident, a written information was given by one Gopal Prasad (P.W.3) at stating that at about 2.30 a.m. in the night when all the family members had gone to sleep after taking their meals, they suddenly saw smoke emerging out and smell of kerosene oil emitting.

Hearing the sighs of the deceased, his mother rushed there and opened the door and saw her daughter-in-law, Geeta Devi, lying in a burning state.

On the alarm being raised by her mother, they also rushed to the room of the deceased and saw that her Sister-in-law had died on account of burn injuries.

On getting the information about her daughter's death, Munni Lal lodged a written report with the police station stating therein that his daughter had been done to death by setting her ablaze by his in-laws on account of a dispute over demand of dowry.

However, after the conclusion of the trial, the Court found no direct evidence in the instant case to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The trial court noted that even from the statements of Prosecution Witnesses, the factum of the alleged motive had not been proved.

The trial court further held that, based on the evidence on record, there was no incriminating evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent, though the incident had taken place within four corners of his house, yet no reliable inference could be drawn against him.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted. The State then moved the instant appeal before the High Court.

It was the primary contention of the AGA, for the state that since the fact that the deceased died within the four corners of her house was proved therefore, it was incumbent upon the accused-respondent to explain under what circumstances the victim died, which the accused did not provide.

Further, it was also argued that since the victim died within the four corners of her house, a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act could be drawn against him, and hence, the accused respondent should have been held guilty of the offence.

Dealing with the contention of the state, the Court, at the outset, perused Section 106 of the Evidence Act to note that only when the prosecution case has proved that the burden regarding such facts was within the special knowledge of the accused, then only the burden may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same.

Now examining whether the prosecution evidence adduced in the trial proves the appellant's participation in the crime, the Court observed that “none of the four witnesses stated that the appellant was present at or near his house at the time of the incident, and no other witness had been examined to suggest that the appellant was at or around his residence at the relevant time.”

In the absence of which, in our opinion, the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn, the Court said.

The Court also stressed that there was nothing on record to show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused when other male members and servants were present in the house.

Further, the Court said that the instant case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.

The Court opined that the prosecution had not conclusively proved the motive. Rather, the prosecution made a faint effort to establish the motive that has not been conclusively proved.

Against this backdrop, the Court upheld the order and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the state's appeal.