S.106 Evidence Act | Accused Has Duty To Offer Explanations When Offence Was Committed Within Privacy Of Their House : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).

The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the decision of the High Court overturning their acquittal in a murder case. It was alleged that the appellant-accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, the accused in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. defence statement tried to take a plea of alibi and offered an explanation that they went to a particular place to attend some function.

The High Court overturned the acquittal after finding that the accused statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. do not impose confidence as they failed to establish an alibi at the time of the incident.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that when the entire prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, then the failure of the accused to justify their claim under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, despite having special knowledge about the incident, would create an additional chain of events strengthening the prosecution's case.

“The presence of the Appellants at the time and place of incident is demonstrable from their conduct before and after the incident. In their defence under section 313 CrPC, the Appellants have stated that all 3 of them had went to Keela Earal to attend a function in the Tractor Company. They returned home only at 6 P.M. and found the deceased in an unconscious stage and they took her to the hospital. Admittedly, the Appellants had taken the deceased to the local hospital, however, none of the Appellants have been able to establish an alibi at the time of the incident. The silence of the Appellants in informing P.W.-1 or the family of the deceased of her death, also speaks volume of their conduct. Undisputedly, the Appellants and the Deceased resided together since the marriage of the Deceased to Accused No.2, which substantiates their presence at the time of occurrence of the incident; and consequently the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be faulted.”, the court said.

Reference was drawn to the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) to hold that the accused owes a duty to explain the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased when the offence was committed in a privacy of the house. The Court said that if the accused remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

“In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S, AOR Mr. Jeyamohan, Adv. Mr. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Alagiri Karunanidhi, Adv. Mr. Rohan Singh, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. N.R. Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sarathraj B, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR

Case Title: UMA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Click here to read/download the judgment