S. 106 Evidence Act | Accused Can't Be Asked To Discharge Burden Of Proof When Prima Facie Case Wasn't Established By Prosecution: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused who was charged with the offence of murdering his wife because the prosecution was not able to prove the prima facie case against the accused.
For invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (“Evidence Act”), the prosecution ought to have discharged the burden on it by adducing cogent evidence to prove the accused presence at the relevant time in his house when the alleged offence was committed, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, PK Mishra, and AG Masih said.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule( Section 101 of the Evidence Act) that the burden of proof is on the person who is asserting the existence of a fact. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, if any fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on him.
Recently, another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Anees V. State of NCT of Delhi held that Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed.
In the present case, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC”), and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. According to the prosecution's case, the appellant murdered his wife. Her body was found in the house of the appellant at about 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant strangulated her, and he came back to his house around 4:00-5:00 p.m.; therefore, the presence of the appellant is established.
The prosecution's case is based on the theory of last seen together. Consequently, the prosecution contends that the appellant had not discharged the burden on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the presumption under Section 106 would apply upon the accused to discharge the burden of the theory of last seen together.
After perusing the material evidence placed on record, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together.
“In this case, going by the evidence of PW-1, the deceased had already died before 5:00 p.m., and the said witness stated that the appellant came back home at 7:00 p.m. There is no evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together. Therefore, the prosecution has not discharged the burden on it to prove that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased wife. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden on the appellant.”, the court observed.
“Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the only circumstance it relied upon, namely, that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.”, the court added.
Hence, the impugned judgments and orders are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offence of murder alleged against him.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv
Case Details: MANHARAN RAJWADE Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019
Citation. :2024 LiveLaw (SC) 531