[Dowry Death] When Offence Committed Inside House, Initial Burden Of Proof Rests On Prosecution But Degree Becomes Lighter: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has clarified that, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, requiring an appellant to explain the cause of a deceased's death without the prosecution first proving basic facts would amount to an improper interpretation of the law.The Court stated that the prosecution must establish foundational facts showing involvement of the appellant and others in the alleged...
The Patna High Court has clarified that, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, requiring an appellant to explain the cause of a deceased's death without the prosecution first proving basic facts would amount to an improper interpretation of the law.
The Court stated that the prosecution must establish foundational facts showing involvement of the appellant and others in the alleged killing over dowry demands for the application of Section 106 to arise.
The division bench, comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar, “for triggering the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must establish basic facts that the appellant in association with others for non-delivery of cow as additional dowry killed the deceased.”
“The evidence on the contrary is that the deceased was badly assaulted before she was killed. The post-mortem report completely belies such statement as no external injury was found on any exposed part of the body of the deceased. Though there is no explanation about the circumstance under which the deceased died but requiring the appellant to explain the cause, especially in the absence of prosecution having proved the case, would be giving a different interpretation to Section 106 of the Evidence Act,” the division bench added.
This ruling was issued while allowing an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as previously determined by the sessions court.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the deceased was allegedly killed by her husband and in-laws due to additional dowry demands. The deceased's brother, Nandlal Sharma, received the initial information and testified at trial. Following an investigation, charges were filed under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. Despite examining eight prosecution witnesses, the trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellant.
The Court noted that the only evidence presented before the Trial Court consisted of depositions from the deceased's parents and the informant, who is the deceased's brother. The Trial Court had reasoned that, because the deceased died in the appellant's home and no explanation was provided for her homicidal death, the appellant should be held liable despite the lack of proof that the appellant was present during the incident.
The Court referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, explaining that when a fact is “especially” within someone's knowledge, the burden of proving it rests on that person. The Court clarified that the ordinary rule in criminal trials, which places the onus on the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt, is not altered by Section 106. In cases of murder committed within a home, the prosecution's burden remains, although the nature and amount of evidence required to establish a case may be lighter.
The Court observed that under Section 106, a corresponding burden falls on household members to provide a clear explanation of the crime. However, the absence of the Investigating Officer's (I.O.) examination prevented a proper assessment of witness statements and the cause of death.
The Court noted that key details, such as when the police arrived at the appellant's house for the inquest and based on whose information, were unclear. While the FIR recorded that information was received at the police station at approximately 09:45 a.m., the FIR itself was registered only at 01:30 p.m., around the same time as the inquest proceedings, the court pointed out.
Concluding that it was not entirely safe to uphold the Trial Court's conviction and sentence, the Court granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, overturned the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.
The appellant, who had already spent nine years in jail, was directed to be released immediately unless detained in connection with another case.
Case Title: Umesh Sharma vs The State Of Bihar
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 104